Organic Minutes
27 04 2009Folks…
A friend of mine used the term, Organic Minutes and it really hit off what I’ve been trying to say all along. This is also to follow up on a couple comments that asked about should this and that be permitted or not; what does the FCC regulation say? and so on.
Definition of organic: Free from chemical injections or additives, such as antibiotics or hormones: organic chicken. c. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.
This is clear enough. I have organic vegetable garden now. No chemical solutions for herbicides, and pesticide are used. Compost – healthy soil; for pesticide, I use hot pepper, insects and whip them into a solution and spray plants; for herbicide, I use my hands. Result, healthy vegetable and delicious to boot and not have to worry about residues of sprays from chemicals used for pesticide and herbicide (Round-up, etc – horrors) affecting our health.
Same with Organic Minutes. It means purely consumer driven minutes. In other words, no telemarketers, no daily internal video conferences (by VRS staff), no online classroom or similar minutes are done. This is how I view VRS industry ought to do; this is how I percieve TRS rules to mean. TRS rules seem to be clear that any relay calls (text relay, Internet Relay, STS, VRS, and other horde features) should have two way participating parties thru relay agent/video interpreter. In other words, both caller and called party should activately participate with each other. So online classroom is out because this is not a true two way conversation. The execption is answering machine and voice mails (it is in the relay rule). Video conference calls are permitted, but it seems that a few VRS providers abuse that just to ramp up VRS minutes; not for the real reason why video conferences are held.
Another important point to consider. This is NOT about accessing various services available for hearing persons, this is about complying what existing federal relay rules (Title IV and subsequent Public Notices, Rule and Orders, etc from FCC) say what is permitted or what is not permitted.
So Organic Minutes means purely and clean relay calls between participating caller and called party. Period. I bet if VRS industry follows that, the total VRS minutes probably will be reduced maybe as much as 30% or more.
I realize this is a very controversial issue. I repeat, this is about what federal relay rules are about. If you think online education should be permitted, address this with the FCC directly as FCC already said classroom interpreting is not permitted for VRS. Same with other services that seem not to be permitted.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed, could you expand on that a bit? Suppose we could drive down the cost of relay by somehow filtering out all but “organic” calls…what would happen to the excess funds? Apparently there is more money coming in than is needed.
Would this mean the tax on telephone bills would be cut? Or would it increase the variety of services available through relay operators, including a formal menu of non-organic services?
Would service be expanded to all deaf customers by subsidizing their internet fees?
I think by discussing specifics like this, the concept would be more popularly supported by the deaf consumers.
This should not be a controversial issue. It should be basic business ethics. If the abuse is as bad as you believe (up to 30%), then eventually there will be a severe legislative or regulatory backlash. When that happens, the deaf community will suffer the consequences. That’s why it’s important that the community be watchful for this, and take their relay business elsewhere when they see it.
I doubt there would be an excess of funds. The contribution factor would be reduced by the amount to equal what is needed to pay the providers. I still disagree with the idea that VRS is a tax subsidized program. It is a group purchase essentially by all telephone companies who are required to make their services accessible. Some of those telephone companies choose to recoup some of their money spent by providing the service others (the majority) choose to simply pay into the fund and let someone else deal with it and designate the providers as their method of compliance with the ADA. That is how I understand the system to operate. This is a good thing though because it could potentially remove a lot of the concern about Congressional oversight of the fund, not the rules, just the fund.
I would agree with Ed though, the myriad of consumer education teleconferences offered and sponsored by providers directly should be considered outreach not reimburseable minutes. However, if an unrelated organization or individual offered an educational type of teleconference where consumers (choosing whichever provider they wanted) could call into a group conference there should be no prohibition for that. It is very similar to how I call in to my student bar association meeting sometimes. I’m only listening to the meeting as it happens but regardless of a person’s status as hearing or non-hearing they should, in my opinion, be able to participate in any telephone conversation regardless of the level of participation.
Universities, training organizations, etc.. should not be allowed to use VRS to supplant an interpreter (onsite or VRI) unless ALL students are required to call into the training remotely. For example, ABC Computer Training offers a webcast with a telephone conference for the audio portion about word processing software features, would be allowed VRS. Alternatively, XZY Management Training offers a training seminar in Los Angeles at the Hilton from 9 – 5 Monday, students are expected to be onsite at the Hilton to attend class, VRS would NOT be allowed. XYZ Management Training could hire interpreters to come onsite or use appropriate video technology accessible to hire remote interpreters for the training.
Daryl, in your hypothesis, the onus is on the company, ABC Computer Training, to provide equal access to its employees, not the Interstate TRS Fund. Anyone that provides a service for profit (or nonprofits breaking even) should make it accessible for all, and should not depend on VRS providers to meet that need. Title IV is only one of the four titles in the ADA.
To rephrase my point, any entity that provides a service for profit is responsible under the ADA to make it accessible and Title IV is not the right title here. VRS should not be used as a crutch in terms of providing access to the Deaf/HOH.
To further my point, employers also have the responsibility to make their training accessible, and should not use VRS. There is another Title in the ADA that covers reasonable accommodations for employees. Again, VRS should not be used to have the employers off easy.
Dianrez,
Daryly is right in the sense that TRS Fund as managed by National Exchange Carrier Association does not have “set fund”. It is solely based on the minutes generated by VRS providers. It is not like a few states that “allocated” fixed amount of fund for relay service. TRS does not have fixed dollar amount.
The ramping up of VRS minutes where they’re not considered “true” VRS minutes by a few VRS providers is what caught FCC’s as well as Congress’s eyes and their subsequent frowns.
eyes open & thumbs up,
C,
You are so very right in your analysis. Some of the issues such as phone-in education theoretically should fall under Title II or III (I never can remember which is which, but you get my point). Your point about VRS staff/employees falling under another title is point well taken. Thank you for bringing this up.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Todd,
This is my and many other’s concerns as well.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Hi Ed,
I am on the road to do an ADA training for a small non-profit. I have spent the last week re-reading all five Titles of the ADA and re-reading all of the court cases, DOJ settlements, and some opinion pieces (both mindless and mindful personal rants).
Thank you for keeping this discussion alive and thank you for the video blog that I am going to show in my presentation on friday to demonstrate what an empowered Deaf person looks like!
(Ethical disclaimer for my fellow ranters: I am doing the training as a volunteer, not being paid. So my use of Ed as a demo of an empowered Deaf person is not a misuse of another person’s work for personal profit.)
JK-II,
I’m humbled and honored that u consider me an empowered Deaf person and use in ur presentation. Geez, that is a lesson for me to lose my pounds of blubber then. Again, thank you.
eyes closed and thumbs way up,
Ed – I know this is a concern to many people. I just think it’s important that each and every individual user know that he/she has the ability to do something concrete about it, namely this:
To the extent your provider is manufacturing minutes, take your business elsewhere!
Thanks for your great service with this site, Ed.
Comment from Sorenson Communications, Inc.
Many Sorenson employees read your blog about “organic minutes” and we wanted to express our support for your position. As an authorized representative of Sorenson Communications I wanted to let you know that you are not alone on this important issue. Back in November 2008 the National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) filed a letter with the FCC identifying many of the same concerns you raised in your blog entry (See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187041). Sorenson quickly followed up with its own filing, strongly supporting the NASRA letter. (see http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187918)
In the end it should be “consumer driven minutes” that determine the success of a VRS provider. Moreover, for all VRS providers, the real measure of character is whether they play by the rules.
Mike Maddix
Regulatory Affairs Manger
Sorenson Communications, Inc.
Mike,
Thank you for your comments. This is really a controversial issue to be sure. I plan to do a follow up vlog on this whole shebang and explain and expand that there are still sticky issues. Be on lookout for that.
Ed
Hi again:
I’ve had some time to think more about the points I raised. Thinking about this and looking at how the Titles in the ADA are set up, I think a simple legal test could be done to determine whether the call is ‘appropriate’ for TRS.
First off, let me say that this is only my opinion and I’ve not taken all factors into consideration such as legislative history, FCC interpretations, etc. This is just my idea on how TRS calls can be sorted in determining which calls can be reimbursed.
My idea is basically simple. It looks at the Titles of the ADA. First, there is the reasonable accommodation requirement which applies to employment (Title I) and accommodations, public and private (Titles II & III). Now, the first part of the test determines whether the VRS call would be considered as a reasonable accommodation for employees. For example, if an employer provides training by teleconference for its employees, then the employer is responsible for finding the reasonable accommodation and pay for it. The public should not foot the bill for reasonable accommodations under Title I. Also, this analysis would not reimburse calls set up by employers for conference calls for its employees as the employer needs to ensure equal access and foot the bill themselves.
Now, if it is not an employer/employee type of call, then one must determine whether it would be a reasonable accommodation under either Title II or Title III. If a paying deaf consumer wishes to use training through the phone, then it is the responsibility of the training provider to take care of reasonable accommodations and TRS should not be used.
If it doesn’t fit any of the three Titles, then it should be considered a legitimate or organic call. There are many scenarios in how this analysis may be carried out.
I also would like to note it’s my opinion that the undue burden analysis shouldn’t be used here. I mean, if the employer says that the proposed reasonable accommodation is too expensive or whatnot, the cost should not be passed onto the public through the TRS Fund regardless.
My point here is that the ADA places responsibility on employers and accommodations (public and private) to ensure/provide equal access. They should foot the bill themselves and not pass on the costs to the public.
Thanks, Christian Wojnar
Christian,
I believe you hit right on the nose of the underlying issues here.
I plan to do a follow up vlog on these very issues.
Thank you, Christian, for clarifying Titles of ADA.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
“C (19:12:48) :
Daryl, in your hypothesis, the onus is on the company, ABC Computer Training, to provide equal access to its employees, not the Interstate TRS Fund. Anyone that provides a service for profit (or nonprofits breaking even) should make it accessible for all, and should not depend on VRS providers to meet that need. Title IV is only one of the four titles in the ADA.”
I think we’re almost in agreement here really. I had not thought of ABC as an employer, only as a company offering some kind of free web cast with audio portion via teleconference.
If the next available interpreter would not provide effective communication for the web cast (i.e., highly technical information) then yes I would agree, maybe they haven’t met the requirement. In terms of strictly relay world (hopefully trying to keep this great lively discussion within some boundaries or the hypothetical situations could go far and wide; though it would make my law professors envious of our discussion
) the VRS provider would be reimbursed for the call.
The same kind of idea would probably apply in the employer sense if all employees are expected to call in to the teleconference, in my opinion, it should be reimbursed. I see it first if the employer expects employees to call into a teleconference, can the Deaf/HH employee do that through VRS? Is the employer making sure they have done everything possible to facilitate that? If the typical VRS next available interpreter scenario does not provide effective communication then it’s probably a situation that moves into the realm of employer/employee accessibility which is probably outside of the boundaries of the discussion here. Though a very interesting topic that I would love to chat with you about sometime.
All in all I think we’re one the same page though, would you agree? Feel free to contact me if you want to chat about the other stuff.
Ed, you may have a second website birthing right here…
BTW – Love the mobile version that my Blackberry just started accessing of the site. Has that always been there?
Daryl,
Glad you noticed the mobile version. Started a couple months ago.
Ed
Hi Ed, can we repost your vlog on EcoDeaf? I think what you’re saying about your organic gardening and all is terrific and fits with the EcoDeaf theme. Let me know. Email us at ecodeaf@gmail.com
Thanks!
Raychelle