Partial Reconsideration of FCC Rules
22 04 2009Folks,
Here is your chance to express your thoughts to this FCC Public Notice.
TDI and GoAmerica petitions for reconsideration of assigning hearing persons with video phones Telephone Number of which FCC had said is not permitted at this time. This is one instance that I disagree with FCC on. If you feel same as I do, tell that to the FCC! Send email to fccinfo@fcc.gov Be sure to include Docket 03-123 in your email.
GA also petitoned other issues you may want to check out; has to do with call back by emergency centers.
This is based on previous FCC Rule and Order; the following link is this:
FCC Multiple Order/Reconsideration
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
PS: forgive me for not going via Vlog – been busy both at home (veg gardening and teenage kids – visiting universities here and there) and office (napping – ha no just kidding – doing some contract works here and there).
Wouldn’t it lead to more scams and frauds, like they did with internet text relay?
Jane,
Good question. That is the beauty of TN. To receive TN, you have to have a physical location and live in America. VRS providers or whoever will be assigning TN to hearing persons are REQUIRED to do verification procedure that they indeed are Americans and have valid address (must be cuz make it possible for emergency service to access that TN).
So there is the possibly, yes, but should be greatly minimized or none if verification process is done right.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
wouldn’t it open the possibility of hearing people making VRS VCO calls to save costs?
i’ve heard ip relay figures of 50% calls being non-legitimate. if only 10% of them aren’t overseas, that’s still an incredible amount of domestic abusers… the trs fund is precarious as is and i know there are deaf callers using vrs in questionable ways but i cringe to think what may be when we add hearing people in the mix. i can suck it in when i think “deaf people are ruining vrs for themselves” and it upsets me when i think “hearing people are ruining ip-relay for deaf people” but it’d kill me if i ever came to think “hearing people are ruining vrs for deaf people”
the price we’re paying now: depleting the trs fund for vrs calls from deaf people to hearing people who can sign. that’s tolerable for the interim, is my position. deciding 10TNs for hearing people is something that can wait, period.
dear ed is god,
First of all I am not God. Not even remotely.
Now your remarks have valid concerns for sure. TRS fund is definitely precarious!
Hearing people using VCO to save costs via VRS. Wow – that theoretically can happen, but I think these folks would be dumb to do that, though. Video Interpreters can see them and hear them. It is not unlike robbers robbing bank without face masks. ;-]
Hearing folks who can sign or have family relatives or good friends can get by vp to vp without going thru VRS – that would save oodles of TRS fund, I think.
On other hand, I hear you…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I fit into the category of hearing people that are in real need of a VP telephone number. Effectively, I have been cut off or hindered from communicating with my Deaf friends and colleagues easily via video. The same would be true for a Deaf person visiting my home, they would not be able to access VRS using a TN because my VP can’t be assigned one.
I believe this is analogous to when the FCC said that ASL/Spanish VRS isn’t really about translating it’s about ensuring that the Deaf consumer could effectively communicate in a functionally equivalent way – Function over Form. This is the same thing in terms of interoperability – the true underlying issue of TN dialing because when you can just dial around to any provider then you have true interoperability regardless of your default provider. The Function of video telephony has been severed because of the Form that it is happening in. Let’s move to Function!!
Unwillingly but stuck having to ask my Deaf friends and colleagues to still use an IP address!! UGHH!!! This is worse than before because now there is a disincentive to deal with it when it’s just easier to not call me. Would we want that to be the same feeling a Deaf son has about calling his hearing parents on video? Think not. ~~~
It would be a non-issue if my own TN could be called and was truly integrated into the national dialing plan. By creating a seperate database that doesn’t appear talk to the current numbering plan database there is no way for my current number to be understood as having a video device attached as well as a voice device.
I don’t necessarily believe it requires a new rule though. The FCC could simply instruct the contractor that maintains the database to work with the national dialing plan database provider (I believe it’s the same organization anyway if I’m not wrong) to develop a peering relationship to effectuate a video and voice dialing plan attached to appropriate device(s). That’s a backend administrative issue regarding a federal contract for services not necessarily the need for an additional rule I would hope.
Daryl
So far since I subscribe, I havent heard single word about Spanish-speaking deaf people who use relay service…. Do they have 100% service what we have now?? That’s my curious!
Now I’m curious if this issue does apply to us in equal???
In other word, I admit I agree with you, Ed 100% – boyee it is very tacky and very sensitivity issue to think about….
It would support the concept of accessibility if hearing businesses had deaf clients and deaf employees. Also, for hearing family members and business associates of deaf people.
Where to put a limit? Usually by putting a price on equipment that is otherwise free to deaf people. Licensing services to hearing people that is not required for deaf people. Putting conditions on the license (such as no cold calling or fraudulent use permitted) so that if a deaf person complained, the equipment or service could be terminated. There could be other ways to put safequards in place.
Scammers will always find a way, including using deaf people to scam others. Exposing a face that is identifiable would put a limit on that, so the chances are less…also, the deaf community needs to learn to protect itself just as hearing people do.
I vethermenly oppose the idea of the VRS providers assign the free VPs to hearing people since I never get the one myself. Why???
I understand that many hearing relatives of deaf people are struggling to get the VP equipment at reasonable rate.
I am supposed to get the MVP or John Yeh’s company’s VP at $99 dollars. I never get any of them. Why?
I am going to contact the FCC and several elected leaders that the VRS providers do discriminate against particular deaf individuals like me. So the VRS providers will lose their government fundings due to cronyism and favorism.
RLM
Smacks of reverse discrimination. A videophone is a videophone. Anyone should be able to use the equipment of it benefits people. Foreign language interpreters have expressed the same need to see the participants equally. Why can’t a spanish english interpreter use a videophone with a patient and a physician? Hearing and Deaf should “See” each other, not a deaf seeing an interpreter and a spoken looking at a blank wall. I want to see my mother when I talk to her. She is deaf and I am not. o what? Equal means same for both. Too many seem to want to “pay back” hearing people for discrimination over the years. Trying to fight back holds all of us back. Get real. Communication is between two or more people. Who cares if they can hear or not?
Lack of equipment the issue? Not enough 200s, MVP or VPADs? Is this the issue? Businesses replace telphone equipment all the time. We have gone through a telephone system with new computer and phones every 7 years. Our deaf clients can not reach us here at the office because the FCC requires a separate phone number for every VP. What if hearing people who work here dial 911? Do they ask us who is calling or which extension the call is from? No. 911 treats us all the same no matter where we call from. I can understand a portable unit being an issue, like a cell phone, but not a land line. 911 calls from a voice phone or a video phone should be the same.
I agree with Deborah Gunter’s comments. A videophone is a technology that should be available to all. It is owned or owed to any one group. It is a tool to enhance communication . I also agree with her on the equipment issue.
Correction to previous post.
It is not owned or owed to any group.
Folks,
Good comments! The vote seems to be aye to allow hearing folks have TN if they have vp.
Ed
RLM,
You have right to be upset! Anyone should be able to get a vp/TN regardless of who they are. What you said you plan to do is let FCC know of your issues, go for it!
Ed
Daryl and Debbie,
I hear you! Or rather, I see you! (didn’t come out quite what I intended it to
hmmm – if cell phones and VoIP can get TN, then theoretically speaking so can Video Phones. Does that require regulation addition or modification? I can’t say for sure…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I am willing to pay for equipment and a phone number so I can have access.
The question should really be which VRS company is going to wise up first and start selling the equipment and phone number to hearing customers for a profit?
The rules are in place to control costs. Costs of these new phone numbers are being billed to the FCC, I presume, so the hard line answer will be NO numbers for hearing people! They just don’t want to pay for it! So – how can we convince them to instead require that the VRS companies make their product with a phone number available to everyone – and charge fees to those who are “hearing?”
Ed,
I do not meant to point out John Yeh in any way. I have high respect for Yeh.
I just could not remmy the name of the VP company Yeh formed. Yes, that would be the Viable.
I must get confused with the Viable and other VP company. I could not remmy what name for this VP company run by hearing people. One of the Asian deaf guy works for that particular VP company which lead me to confuse him with the VP company lead by John Yeh. Yes, I know the difference between that Asian guy and John Yeh, but mistook him to be an associate of the VP company with Yeh.
My sincere apology to John Yeh. He is really a decent and great person.
Robert L. Mason
Ed,
That would be the CSDVRS’s “Z” portable videophone I am still waiting for this VRS/VP company to sell me this one since last October 2008.
I do have my laptop programmed with HOVRS, but pretty heavy for me to carry it everywhere – 5 pounds as compared to 2 pounds of CSVRS’s “Z” VP.
My sincere apology to Mr. John Yeh.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLM
Hi Ed,
I wonder if workshop events like this are legal? The presenter signs in ASL to a VRS interpreter, who then interprets the call into voice English to a X number of other interpreters, who then signs in ASL to their callers. Everyone involved are Deaf and use ASL except for the VRS interpreters. For example, see below:
“For ALL conference calls, do the following:
To join, use the Video Relay Service (VRS) and do the following:
Call VRS (see below). You are encouraged to call about 10 minutes before the start time.
Dial the number XXX.XXX.XXXX
Give the video interpreter the access code: XXXXXX.
You are now in a conference meeting. Wait for the meeting host to welcome you. You can use a service provider of your choice. The DPREC recommends
wonderfulvrs.tv. ”
Is this legal? Want to make sure it’s ok before I participate in conferences like this.
Thank you.
RLM,
Thank you for being upfront on this. Takes guts to apologize.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Dear Legal?,
Let me put it this way. TRS rule specifically said that relay calls must involve two way party conversation through relay agent or video interpreter; must be participating. The only exception is retrieval of answering machine or voice mails. That’s it.
In the FCC Public Notice sometimes ago mentioned the difference between Video Relay Service (VRS) and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). in that PN, it said classroom interpreting falls under VRI, not VRS.
Now this video conference calls: if the caller and called parties are able to communicate with each other; not an one way communication, theoretically this could be permitted. However, I see lot of “video conference” labeled when it should be labeled as online/phone education. If so, that falls under VRI, not VRS.
VRI means the cost of paying is from either customer or the company, not from federal fund whereas VRS is paid from federal fund.
Is this helpful?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Yes, helpful. Thanks Ed!