GoAmerica Petition
28 03 2009Folks…
GoAmerica (The Purple folks) submitted a petition to the FCC. See the link
Basically GoAmerica is asking the FCC
[Quote] "..to amend its rules (1) to prohibit the practice of providing “white label” servicesby uncertified entities receiving compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund through certified providers,and (2) to require applicants for Internet-based TRS certification to demonstrate sufficient resources and capabilities to provide an Internet-based TRS service." [Unquote]
You need to read this to get the full story, but according to GA, a VRS provider must generate 20K VRS minutes, sufficient capital at least for one year, and other requirements. This petition also could mean that all these domain names that are not certified by the FCC, should not allowed to participate with existing certified VRS providers. This may include all the organizations, clubs, deaf schools, alumni associations, etc. that had signed up with a VRS providers.
Also, these small VRS providers who has contract agreement with VRS providers who do have certification. According to the GA petition, these small VRS providers may not be qualified if the GA’s petition is accepted by the FCC. In other words, if these small VRS providers want to participate, they would need to use domain name that is certified as VRS providers, not theirs.
The above link is a rebuttal to GA’s petition. Healinc basically says that the real reason GoAmerica submitted the petition was to kill off competitors and prevent genuine start ups. Healinc indicated that many of established telecommunications service providers got their start by partnering up with existing telephone companies and ultimately were able to stand on their alone. Worth reading.
Healinc makes a few good points, but I also think the company went to the other extreme, though.
The following link is a Public Notice from the FCC.
PN lists schedules on when to respond, etc. Remember responding before 30 days carries LOT MORE weigh than if you submit comments after the 30 days; that would become "ex parte comment". It still carries weigh, but not as much as if you had submitted within 30 days.
My Personal Opinion.
Yes, definitely we need to minimize the ‘fly-by-night" VRS providers who do nothing but use their own sales people, contract with telemarketers to use VRS, use classroom interpreting, etc. to ramp up VRS minutes and not focused on genuine consumers who need to make VRS calls.
This kind of criteria by GoAmereica may block genuine deaf/hoh or honest and ethical start up VRS providers from going into VRS business. On other side, Healinc may allow these fly-by-night operator "easily" become part of VRS industry. My opinion is that both GA and Healinc are at both end of extremes; that we need balanced regulation to certify VRS providers.
What I think should be written down is to require a VRS center, have broadband and call center resources in place, show a capacity to follow TRS rules, and, finally – especially this one - that VRS provider focus on consumers for VRS minutes; in other words, be consumer driven as TRS regulation intended it all along. That’s it.
One additional thought for FCC: If Internet-based Relay Services follow rule of regular TTY relay service, then there is a 5 year periodic review by the FCC for re-certification of service. Because VRS is such an explosive industry, I would suggest that when review period for re-certification comes up, FCC asks hard questions to the VRS providers to ensure that they are following regulations to the letter. Maybe even shorten the 5 year to 3 year review just for the startups to ensure that they’re following regulations. Once FCC satisfied, go back to 5 years?
If you feel strongly about this issue, please do submit! The instruction to do that is in the link FCC PN above.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
PS: BTW, the new FCC Chair has yet to be approved by the Senate. So have not drafted promised sample of "congratulatory" letter yet.
This will be an interesting subject for FCC to sort out. My immediate reaction is that those requirements proposed by Goamerica/Purple will effectively reduce any chances for a deaf person to establish Video Relay Service dramatically.
Within the deaf community, the funding aspect is always a tough area to resolve. To have one year worth of capital means you have to have at least 1.5 – 2 million dollars to start with. This basically removes any potential deaf owned companies from the picture completely.
Guaranteeing 20,000 minutes to start with seems like an awkward subject to approach. In order to start up a service, the idea is to work with customers in trying out the service. That doesn’t happen overnight.
On the other hand, I agree and would like to see more accountability on the billing parties with any partners. I think this is an area where FCC can compromise on and provide opportunities for any upcoming VRS companies and maintain a high level of quality.
Thanks for the interesting information. I tried to google healinc and can’t find their website since I never heard of this company.
Please allow me to play devil’s advocate a bit. Let’s say FCC allows small companies to start up VRS and then interpreters flock from one company to another, what will happen to the quality of VRS services? For instance what would happen if small company does not have enough interpreters to meet FCC’s requirement to be available for VRS calls? What happens if all vrs providers doesn’t have enough interpreters because there are too many vrs providers out there? I am sure we all hate to go through all the trouble in jumping from one VRS provider to another VRS provider whenever they are too busy not answering our calls.
Something to think about.
I think it’s interesting that Go America is finding it necessary to block competition. They too started as a small entity.. and it’s well known that if their logs were heavily scrutinized .. they would not be looked highly upon by the fcc. They claim to have the best interpreters.. but many of those interpreters have left. Ethically they have been challenged by being told what to do.. vs. what’s right. I agree with Robin.. that setting up a baby vrs company is a challenge already.. and I don’t think anyone should be bullied by Purple whom obviously is feeling threatened. The point to providing VRS is.. to provide communication access for people who are deaf and hard of hearing.. or have to use sign language to communicate. we need to be pure in this mission.. I also like the concept of more accountability to the FCC in general.. not only for start ups.. but all vrs providers. if it’s been deemed that vrs has not been true to its intent.. then all should be held to the same scrutiny from the FCC.
I feel whatever standards and expectations that are placed on the new vrs companies.. should bounce back to Purple. They should keep quiet.. as they are no angels either.
David B.,
Exactly. It is reason why I emphasized “consumer driven” as part of requirement. I would not be surprised if this is enforced, I would venture to guess about 30% of all VRS minutes would be reduced because of abuse by VRS providers. That alone will free up “hold” on Video Interpreters to some degree.
Also, I think VRS providers are finally becoming sensitive to the needs of deaf/hoh and have made arrangement with community interpreting service to free up Video Interpreters to do some community or education interpreting. Granted, this is slow in coming, but I see definite patterns in that.
Well Rounded Interpreter,
Thank you for your frank remark. I’ve already gotten feedback from quite a few interpreters on several other VRS providers on “inappropriate” way to interpret in VRS environment.
Ed
3 yrs then back to 5 yrs for FCC to be re-licensing????
I admit that it is sort of grey shape for me to understand clear… So I request you to re-clarify this part of issue before I can make a comment, will you please?
Thanks!
Very interesting reading, this!
Basically the interpreters do not know the ‘power’ they have in this field – it would both be logic and feasible for them to group together and establish their own call centers and then subcontract their time and services to competiting VRS services rather than the other way round. This way the interpreters get to set out their working conditions and so on. Where’s the entrepreneurial spirit amongst the interpreters?
Jeff.. I agree with you.. interpreters are not exercising their ability to mold our community and direct our profession. We seem to be letting VRS bullies control what we do and take advantage of our values. I have worked in vrs companies where they want to produce fraudulent minutes and use our Code of Professional Conduct against us Stating that whatever we see once the call has started is confidential and we cannot report this activity. What is this.. a way to keep us quiet and make us be eaten alive with guilt of knowing that our system is being torn apart and the blessing of communication is being risked at the benefit of some big wig administration who is looking to bank on minutes produced by vrs. what is wrong here.. We as interpreters just sit quietly.. miserable .. taking this while we loath doing the job we all started out with passion and love to do.
Interpreters do have power.. we are all advocates for the population we serve.. can we save the world.. no. but can we make a difference in the integrity of what we do and how we present ourselves to our consumers? YES! We are not able to fight the fight of all inequalities, but we can take a stand in regards to how we are being played fools in this system. They (VRS Providers, Agencies, Schools) cannot do this without us. we are the work horses that make this money wheel go around. we hold all the cards in this game. Are all interpreters perfect and honest.. NO.. but who is holding anyone accountable? RID? not when it comes to this ethical behavior issues.. all the VRS fraud activity that happened this past year.. RID did nothing with.. so what policing do we account to .. in doing go work. Most of the time its ourselves. For some reason.. we are discouraged from policing each other. So where is the safety in the purity of our work. Now.. that’s another issue.. but until that gets rectified.. we need to address the fact that VRS is here. and it’s up to us to make sure it’s being run in a way that doesn’t damage our society and community we work within. What are people willing to do. How do we get this mess cleaned up?
And May.. the concept of 3 years and 5 years.. basically stateing that a startup would have a follow up.. a shorter time.. to assure they are adhearing to FCC quality and standards.. vs. 5 years.. after they have proven themselves to then be able to be recertified at 3 years the first time and 5 thereafter… the idea was to then be under the 5 year recertification cycle. this was to assure that new companies weren’t running ramped in the country for 5 years with no regulation. just a training wheel concept..
Although the options available to deaf users have improved dramatically over the last decade, true telecommunications equivalency is still a long way off. Much innovation is still needed. History has shown that the richest source of true innovation is the small, entrepreneurial start-up. A large, entrenched company typically has little incentive for “game changing” innovation when it already is winning at the game in its current form. It is also well-understood that large companies tend to have cultures that simply are less conducive to risk-taking and innovation. If granted, the GoAmerica petition would have the effect of blocking from the market those companies most likely to produce real innovation. That is very bad policy, especially with so much work still to be done to achieve telecommunications equivalency.
To Well Rounded Interpreter, BIG TIME THANKS FOR CLARIFYING IT TO ME!
After I now understand, I am not for it!
WHY?? Supposedly the VRS provider gets certification from the FCC, then this provider has some employees to abuse and “get by” until they are re-certificated in 5 yrs! This part I’m not for it at all!
If the FCC prefers first 3 yrs and then 5 yrs, I would then make a suggestion that FCC add “strict” statement for the VRS providers to follow the rules –
such as voilate the rule – giving a warning note
twice ” ” ” giving a stern warning
thrice ” ” ” tear the certification and EVEN for the VRS provider losing their license to operate the business…
I had VRI (I’m not going to name the VRI company name and even this operator’s nbr for I already voiced my complaint to the supervisor) we chatted for short while I was put on hold – this opr told (NOT ASK ME A QUESTION – JUST TELL ME AS IT IS!) that ASL is now dying!
Of course I disconnected right away with angry feeling and re-dialed to make a call …
That kind of opr I dont like to make calls!!!!!! It makes me having the desire to puke!
It also makes me to wonder – interpreters saying “WHOOPPIE I HAVE A JOB” but their hearts aren’t with us who are deaf/hoh! That part I hate!
It is funny that GA seeks to limit poor service by limiting compitition. Even though the FCC is paying for all of the minutes, the Deaf/HoH are the real customers. As a deaf customer I know that if I experience on a continous basis the poor quality of service that GA claims that the existing rules promote, I will no longer use the services of that particular VRS. If enough Deaf/HoH have the same feeling, then that poor performing VRS company will go out of business just like everything else in a capitalist society.But this will not happen if there is a reduction in competition.
I am also wondering who GA is trying to hurt here. The small startups or the bigger companies that contract on a regular basis with these smaller companies. I think there are some VRS companies that are notorious for contracting out their VRS services to smaller local entities. These larger companies would also be hurt in a ruling like this.
The whole goal of reducing the minutes usage is to reduce the cost to taxpayers. If FCC had to regulate and certify every little start up company (there could be literally hundreds out there), how much is it going to cost the FCC in manpower to go and inspect each and every one of these smaller entities. There might be some number crunching necessary to find out which is more cost benificial to the taxpayer.
I work in the transportation industry and in our industry the prime contractors are responsible for the work of the subcontractors. If the subcontractor messes up, it’s the prime contractor that has to pay for the mistake. If the FCC can institute effective rules that penalize the VRS companies recieving funds directly from TRS for the noncompliance of the smaller VRS companies they sign contracts with then this issue will probably be minimized without hurting competition.
In conclusion, I believe that if a VRS company chooses to subcontract their work out to smaller a smaller company the prime VRS company should bear the responsibility of compliance. This will allow smaller VRS companies to gain entry into the marketplace through contracts and keep FCC from being overburdened with making sure that every little VRS startup is playing by the rules. If a VRS company is receiving money directly from the fund then all they have to do is meet the same requirements of all other VRS providers that are recieving funds directly from TRS. If the VRS company is recieving money through another VRS provider then the VRS provider who is recieving money directly from the fund is responsible for the compliance of that company. I’ve seen it in practice and I think it will well in the VRS industry.
I have to agree that GA is trying to block competitions which take away new VRS companies the time to grow and to market themself. GA would make themself an public enemy like Sorenson went through being an public enemy. I feel GA has been dirty for a while now. There is no need to required any VRS companies to meet 20K VRS minutues required.
Commentators,
You do me proud. Your thoughts are well thought out and to the point.
I sincerely hope VRS providers are reading all these comments and do a thorough internal analysis of their practices. I do know a few FCC folks are reading these comments as well. However, your thoughts as expressed should also be expressed to the FCC by sending them email as it will make an impact as well.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
It would be my pleasure to email FCC. Can you give me FCC’s email addy.
David B,
Here are the links for Healinc Telecomm.
http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6xg09m See the annual sales. Very small.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2809764/Notice-Common-carrier-services-Interstate-Telecommunications-Relay-Service-Fund-video-relay-service-provider-eligibility-certification
The above certifies Healinc Telecomm as VRS provider.
If FCC certifies based on at least one VRS center, has platform, understands deaf/hoh communities, etc., very likely this company may not be approved.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Chris,
I had been out of town doing business work; was in MD and then NYC. Whirlwind activities. Sorry not to respond sooner.
A few ways to do that:
For existing TRS issue that needs comment; that is, 30 days have not expired yet, go to
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/
scroll down to Ten-digit numbering for Internet-based TRS and click on continue and go thru process..this one is fairly easy.
The more complicated one is this one.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
And finally the simplest way is send email: fccinfo@fcc.gov Be sure to include docket number otherwise they won’t know. Docket 03-123 and then cite Ten Digit Phone numbering system if that is what you want to comment on. The last one can be for ex-parte as well (ex-parte means deadline to comment has expired or can be for any telecomm issues that are not on the record).
Good luck…
Ed
CR,
I agree with you what you are trying to say. It boils down to VRS providers – either as certified VRS provider, or riding on other VRS provider – do the requirements. Right now the requirements are minimal. FCC needs to increase requirements to the point where burden of accountability; i.e. consumer driven, ethical, etc. on VRS providers.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Although I do agree with what they’re saying about oversight and making sure that anyone providing VRS services must comply, I think that the reasoning behind requiring 20,000 minutes or more for each company is flawed. Their numbers may be right, but if you close down the small shops, those interpreters will not necessarily flock to the big box companies. Many of them are not there because they prefer not to be, or because they once were and do not like it. Because they’re interpreters, they can choose their settings, and can always go back into the community and interpret there full time. Go America’s mistake here is that they are seeing us as a pool of VRS interpreters, when, in fact, we are a pool of interpreters. Some of us do VRS, some don’t, some do it part time, some do it for awhile, and others do it forever.
Terpgirl,
Good remarks you made. I like the way you said it “pool of interpreters”. In other words, we need to be more sensitive to interpreters’ needs. Right on!
Ed