Ed’s Telecom Alert

All..

One word: wow – that was unique petition for rulemaking to clarify relay regulations by Purple – a VRS provider.

Purple is arguing that some of the VRS practices should be allowed based on functional equivalence in terms of access.

I will only highlight a few selected issues, do a very brief summary, and let you read rest of them. A lot of the issues has to do with what VRS provider can do and cannot do.

One was about employees and subcontractors make VRS calls in the course of their employment. FCC has in the past noticed abuses of that and may – wants to forbid these type of calls. For example, having employees make various VRS calls on behalf of VRS provider for whatever reasons may be – at the expense of federal government. Or perhaps subcontracting with a marketing company that hires deaf employees to make VRS calls with survey, research, data collection, etc., at the federal expense. VRS provider who does that makes money by submitting VRS minutes to the NECA. These VRS calls have the appearance of “manufactured” minutes that we’ve seen so many time in various websites. FCC frowns at that and Purple is asking to allow that.

Another one is multi-video conference calls; in other words, be able to call and connect to several deaf/hoh and hoh and persons who “may or may not” have disabilities (italic from Purple). In other words, video conference calls entirely by deaf/hoh only and no hearing persons, these type of calls should be permitted so says Purple. This means one video interpreter per deaf person, so if, say, 5 deaf/hoh persons utilize multi-video conference calls means 5 Video Interpreters will be utilized. Wow – that is a way to make lot of money. Purple is asking to allow that.

Purple pulls from various excerpts from ADA about deaf/hoh needing employment, and all that – that FCC should follow the spirit of that.

Purple touches on outreach projects that there are issues with that.

This is the link below.

Purple Petition

Let me offer a compromise that may be a win-win solution. Disclaimer: this is purely my opinion and not representative of any company.

Why not any VRS minutes generated by deaf/hoh employee of VRS providers regarding business be at-cost of average salary of video interpreter plus little overhead cost? It won’t be full VRS rate. Let’s say an interpreter earns $45 an hour means 75 cents per min ($45 divided by 60 min) plus overhead costs – say, a dollar so $1.75 per min for any minutes generated by deaf/hoh employees of VRS providers for doing VRS business? (Disclaimer, the cost figures are purely estimated off my head.) That way, VRS providers will not make money out of it, yet the deaf/hoh would be gainfully employed based on his/her qualifications. Deaf/hoh persons would have to do their job well to keep the job as opposed to “guarantee” revenue for deaf/hoh without having to worry about ROI (return of investment) of the deaf/hoh person? In other words, deaf/hoh will need to do his job well to keep his job.

As for multi-video conference calls. Compromise, not ideal, but netherless a compromise where multi-video conference programs can be utilized? VRS providers can easily get these type of programs, and use one Video Interpreter for 5 deaf/hoh persons if a hearing person or two is involved? If all deaf, then VRS provider can provide its own multi-video conference program for its deaf/hoh to use that and no need to use VRS?

Below is a link to SorensonVRS comment on Purple’s petition. Sorenson suggests that FCC does not support Purple’s stance.

(Note: problem with link – bear with me)

I strongly suggest you read the Purple’s petition. Makes for interesting reading and very informative. Let me know your thoughts. Remember, no flames or finger-pointing at specific names. If I see any of that, I will delete them. Constructive criticism with tact or praises are permitted.

This is submitted by Purple; Dan Luis, a CEO who is a hearing person. Kelby Brick, a Vice President who is deaf (deaf family). I see list of other lawyers who are based at DC as well that are part of the petition.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Folks..

CSDVRS is petitioning FCC to initiate rule-making on regulation of provider representatives and their marketing practices.

Basically, CSDVRS is claiming that a few VRS providers would use their marketing practices where their representative would threaten to take away their video phones if they do not use provider that gave video phones to VRS users, harass VRS users until they start using its VRS provider, mislead into thinking if they “dial-around” that VRS will lose the features of Video Phone, and other unethical representative practices.

CSDVRS is saying deaf/hoh persons are intimidated by unscrupulous representatives that they are afraid to report to the FCC.

CSDVRS is proposing stiff penalty with fines equal to many people’s full year’s salaries and more.

Read on, Gentle Readers.

CSDVRS Petition

CSDVRS is the same as The Z Co if you are wondering…and was submitted by Sean Belanger, a CEO who is a hearing person along with a lawyer.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Folks..

Quote: “The goal of the workshop is to promote an open dialogue between the FCC, people with disabilities, advocates for people with disabilities, service providers, and other groups that have a stake in the future of broadband and its accessibility for people with disabilities.”

Unquote.

Those of you who cannot attend in person, can attend webinar. Go to this link:

Broadband Workshop

Strongly suggest you attend webinar. I plan to.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Folks..

These two reports from NECA are revealing. My interpretation of the data that it shows that the FCC’s message is finally getting through to the TRS industry (remember that TRS means traditional, VRS, IP Relay, and all that) that FCC no longer tolerate relay providers that process illegal calls. I guess the possible threats of FBI, OIG, or CGB (latter two are under FCC) investigating relay providers with a fine-tooth review likely caused most of providers clean up their act. In doing so, what NECA projected was off. Keep in mind that NECA has lot of experiences in projecting growths, so for NECA to be off is a good indication that there may a factor or two that they were not aware of. Maybe like these data-influencing incidents: the closing HawkRelay, and Viable being visited by FBI. Perhaps TRS providers observed these federal actions and they decided to either clean up or tighten the screening of their relay calls to ensure the relay calls are legal? As consequence, the relay minutes went down?

June 2009 Call Data Look at the row of “% Difference”. It means what was projected vs actual. The minus % is intriguing.

VRS Min Actual VS Projection This one shows the actual minutes vs projected on VRS only.

Hopefully this means TRS is finally focusing on consumers only, and not on how to manufacture minutes. Now, this is only my interpretation. Some may disagree with me on this and simply say that Summer is notoriously slow; my counter would be NECA would be aware of this factor as they have worked with TRS industry many years and probably already factored in their estimate of that?

Anyhow, hats off to the FCC for finally taking action. Federal agency may move slowly, but ultimately they get job done.

I suspect the whole situation is not over yet, though.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed