Purple’s Request for Clarification
26 08 2009All..
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.
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
I certainly agree with the argument that deaf employment opportunities need to be maximized, but paying them to be on VRS calls is not an ideal way to do it. What VRS providers can do to help with employment is to provide products and services that enable deaf employees to be as effective as possible in workplace environments where co-workers and customers are overwhelmingly hearing. It can take a bit of extra coaching or screening to ensure that VIs have the skills to handle business calls – both person to person and business conference calls – since these calls can be demanding and sometimes present unique issues. But that extra effort doesn’t have to be expensive, and it can confer huge benefits int he workplace. These are important issues that I try write about in my blog at http://www.nextalk.com . Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but this is important stuff that we’re very passionate about, and there simply aren’t enough career and professional resources out there yet.
I read the petition and I found Sorenson’s filing (your link is broken). You misinterpreted both Purple’s petition and Sorenson’s position. Nobody is asking for approval of manufactured minutes like you said. THe petition makes a lot of sense to me and is different than what you said.
By the way, as a tech geek, multi-conference for video is not widely available and good for many people. I work in big multinational company. My colleagues are on conference calls all day and I call in those calls all the time. I can imagine large deaf friendly company like Purple, Snap, etc with many deaf employees need to make many conference calls like where I work. If Video, forget it, no way. Maybe in future with better technology but not today. Maybe you should do your homework to find out what its like in big companies with many employees in different locations?
I used to work for Hovrs aka Purple Communications. I am kind of not surprised that they did file this petition. I have participated their conference calls and I would say about 95% of their meetings are worthless to benefit from. The meeting discussions are always the same everyday where same questions were asked by different people. Even one of the Managers who moderated the meeting, asked us to stay on-line for ten more minutes and discussed about football or any other topics that was not even work-related. I told them that it was not ethical for me to participate these kind of calls but they told me to shut up so that is the main reason why I resigned. I just can’t allow them to get manufactured minutes from me while deaf people are suffering in getting busy calls through HOVRS. I even suggested that they should participate video conference calls where we can use software like oovoo for deaf reps to see each other and discuss these topics instead of using VRS through conf calls.
Also, HOVRS would allow us as rep to make a vrs call to a hearing employee at purple communicaton to confirm that they have completed a conversion or mvp installation. My question is why don’t they hire deaf employee for deaf rep to contact them directly instead of using vrs? The same thing happened with Sorenson VRS and SnapVRS.
Sad that VRS companies are thinking of greed instead of being consumer driven ones.
Interesting! Curious–since you set up ConvoRelay–what is your policy on relay calls that you make? Have you paid money back to NECA for all calls that you make since you work for Convo because that could be interpreted as financial incentive for you to make calls?
Also I understand that FCC rules require all relay providers to outreach public about relay services. I’m tired of being hung up by banks and other businesses. What has ConvoRelay done to follow rules and do outreach to make my life better? Are you saying that you refuse to let Convo Relay do outreach?
VI’s rate per hr is too high. Should be $20 per hour or less. Sorenson is 85% marketing and CSDVRS, ViableVRS, Purple, ConVo VRS never bother to complain about Sorenson’s monoply. Soreson wants to thank you so much that they are making huge $$$$.
Tech Geek,
Links are all ok. I double checked. I did do my homework – I guess it is matter of intepretation. Thanks for ur input they’re appreciated.
eyes open & thumbs up…
It seems the link “purple request clarification” is not working. I get 404 error. I would like to read the petition for myself and create my own opinion.
Those spats are among reasons why every relay company needs to be treated as if they’re a public company because they’re subsidized by the government. This means the salaries of every relay’s executives (up-to-down to a particular level deemed reasonable) be listed for the general public.
While you guys are at it see to it that the deaf are out of illegitimate work. No sympathies. Okay?
I came to understand why Apologists are rampant among native Uthns in Utah. Skills were honed.
I wish to add that not only Purple have practiced this to perfection subjecting me to a lengthy interview when all I wanted to set up an account as I do with all relay providers just so not to snub anyone in this very small world. Viable engaged in this practice and I’m sure of numerous others. A certain person who was listed in the docket of the Class Action Suit against Viable is in “market research.” Talk about irony.
i used to work for CSDVRS and they do the mintues driven for clearblue. We dont tell non-profit but goal is to get them to use as much as they can and we gave out very small % of profit to non-profit org. Really All VRS CO are dirty peroid. I decided not to work for VRS co anymore.
Me too. The PDF links are broken?
The comment you made on “hearing”, I think you’re being biased here since you’re running a VRS compayny and trying to tell others that they’re run by hearing folks.
Who cares?
I would suggest that you to be neutral otherwise this website should be moderated by someone else who has no involvement in VRS industry.
C.E.O. DEAF LEGAL ADVOCATE
Dear Ed,
I am very concerned that various entities have abused the process, however we need to remember something here, the law very clearly makes it functional equivalent, this is a key word in the entire argument. Now what is more interesting is that people are slamming one another here and its time to sit back and look at this objectively.
Let’s use an example of a deaf person who wants to apply for a job working at the Internal Revenue Service, and that person is going to work as a tax collector, now he/or/she will be able to make calls using the relay service. That call is not going to be billed to the I.R.S., and what’s more it is billed to the tax payers.
People forget something here and that is that individuals in all walks of the world are always looking for ways to make money and abuse money. But, if these surveys, market research are truly used for legitimate purposes to better ones business, and they have data to back up how the research was used and the outcome and the work product. This will not be Illegal, however what we have here and I have seen it first hand with various companies and organizations across the United States is flooding calls to situations that are not right, including hearing individuals using the computers posing as deaf individuals making calls, this in fact is “STEALING FROM THE GOVERNMENT” no matter how you look at it.
Additionally, the VRS reimbursement rate is a rate that I feel is phony, people need to get honest here, pay the interpreters what they are worth, stop making people wait on calls. I can honestly say that two weeks ago, in my office with three deaf individuals who work at various relay services tele[phoned on a saturday evening 9 various providers to place a call. I was appalled and shook my head in disbelief when I saw that the average wait time for calls were 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes with the exception of 3 companies and interestingly enough those companies were ACEVRS, CACVRS, CONVO RELAY, and what surprised me is that those three are under contract with the same people.
Another shocking thing that happened is that a deaf person formerly with Sorenson tried for days to contact their corporate office to discuss COBRA insurance, they were told to leave a message and that someone would call them back. THey left message after message, what was truly interesting is that they were using the provider of their choice, what did Sorenson do, they called back to the VP phone that the deaf individual called from, which was my personal VP phone, the deaf individual never provided a phone number where they were calling from, they used another RELAY Provider, but Sorenson called back using Sorenson VRS which is their right.
People need to remind themselves and familiarize themselves with the Free Trade Act and the fact that there is illegal and unconstitutional to put a restriction on the Free Trade of business and this was done so that no one could have a monopoly.
To suggest that someone pay a lowered rate with no profit is insane, it is already hard enough for deaf individuals to get jobs in certain areas, this allows functional equivalency.
If you are not careful you will be cutting your own legs off before you know it.
The real issue here is that several groups severely abused it, misused it, and they should be prosecuted for that abuse.
But it is ridiculous to exclude people based on categories, and set up various prices for it. At the same times C.E.O.’s , managers need to be more proactive and prevent abuses and misuses from happening,
When a hearing person calls an operator, or 411, the call is customarily greeted within two to four rings, but because providers are constantly trying to make money, and cut costs on interpreters to make money FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY has been lost and it is us as a community as a whole who is suffering as a result. Hearing people cannot get a hold of someone to call their deaf friend, neighbor, co worker, relative, client, customer and the same vice versa.
WHILE, I do not condone some of Sorenson’s tactics and monopoly, lets face it you would not be using the VP 200 if it was not the best on the market, and now there are newer models coming up and Sorenson has better products they will be releasing soon. From a business point of view I cannot blame Sorenson for developing many technical preventative techniques to perhaps keep business more geared towards them. However if you feel you are being violated or improperly abused or that their system is incorrect then please complain to the FCC.
The problem in our community is that we rather complain and gossip about things for years before we get off our own butts and do what is right place the issue or complaint to the FCC and get it ruled on and move forward.
I appreciate where Ed is coming from in regards to his opinion, but if truly thought out, even you make a lot of conference calls, participate in webinars, and meetings ED and rightfully so you have the right to use the person you want to use regardless of who they work for, but then if you are holding unnecessary meetings, conference calls, then you are bolstering minutes, and I know you would never do such a thing like that and I am sure that you do not use other providers
unless a service there is not another one available.
I think everyone is reacting to the abuse of the failed companies that have done a lot of bad things. Because of this everyone is getting derailed and not sticking to the issues. Because there has never been a true clean set of rules Purple is asking for clarification, and rightfully so they may have crossed the lines on some things, but if you don’t ask and play dumb and then get caught, then you only have yourself to blame.
DEAF POWER ALL THE WAY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE WHO WE WANT, AND IF WE START PUTTING RESTRICTIONS LETS START BY ALL THESE HEARING PEOPLE USING IP RELAY, WHO HAVE TRULY RACKED THE NUMBERS HIGH.
For the person who commented that VI interpreters rates are too high and should only be $20.00 per hour. You are forgetting one thing, Interpreters are professionals. In business we have a saying “you get what you pay for”. Well out there there are a lot of horrible, incompetent interpreters and therefore we hire them and pay then fifteen to twenty five bucks an hour. If you want good ones, then by golly pay for it and stop whining. Interpreters should earn between $20 to $75.00 per hour and if you think this is crazy, let me ask you this.
We know that many deaf agencies across the United States pay interpreters between $30 to $100 an hour and turn around and bill the employers, hospitals, companies, family members anywhere between $$75.00 to $250.00 an hour and no one complains about it except when their employer comes to them and says “there will be no interpreter at todays workshop” the fee is too expensive, but yet Company Corporate Sponsors can spend millions and millions of dollars for a weekend retreat.
We need to respect ourselves, and demand equal rights, or we too will become our own worst enemy and fall to a third class class regime or citizenship.
Furthermore, I can testify that smaller relay companies with proper management have been taking large steps including filing a complaint with the ADA in regards to the banks not providing access.
These relay companies need to have outreach, and they need to be handled professionally, and for those companies who hire the deaf or the hearing to utilize relay, people are being employed and rightfully so.
Viable did commit some violations, but they will pay the price for those acts, and they have been sold, so now lets focus on making this right so things will go back to the way they should be and if providers do not like the NECA rate or the TRS reimbursement rate or the VRS Rates, they need to do the work and show the expenses, the rates are based upon submission of pay records and costs, and were not picked because someone felt like picking the numbers. I challenge all providers to truly do an “OUTREACH” job and stop talking about a job they don’t do well.
This CEO says cut the bull and bring in the bulldozers and make waves for the new generation and HANDS AND THUMBS UP FOR GETTING THERE BUT WE ARE NO WHERE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT and it is up to us to get there.
Ed you are doing a great job and I know we will work a lot together!
C.E.O. DEAF LEGAL ADVOCATE
Ed, do you think calls made on behalf of an employer should be considered a reasonable accommodation under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
I mean, making calls in the course of your employment is making calls you otherwise would not have made except for your employment. Since folks like Kelby (when he was at the NAD and also as a private attorney) have made it a point that all employers have to provide reasonable accommodations for their employees, why should the accommodation of a video interpreter be moved to Title IV? What’s the difference between having an interpreter in person and having an interpreter on the phone? In person, the employer has to pay, while, on the VP, the cost is passed onto the public, right? Unless there is specific statutory language taking this reasonable accommodation out of the realm of Title I, I believe employers such as Purple are responsible for the costs incurred by their employees when making phone calls on their behalf and this should also include independent contractors. In other words, these calls are really VRI, not VRS.
As for conference calls, we also have to keep in mind of the other requirement in addition to functional equivalency. ‘In the most efficient manner…’ Functional equivalenists tend to overlook that other requirement.
The idealist in me says that Purple raised these issues baldly to have them completely shot down by the FCC, unequivocally in the most clearest manner possible but I’m cynic by nature….
Finally, I’m tired of the functional equivalency argument. It’s been used to justify so many things under the sun. I’m afraid it’ll lose its original intent and purpose and harm the deaf community in the long run.
My only comment – Where can I as an interpreter move so that I can earn $45 per hour??????
I am in Michigan and it is difficult for interpreters here with high certification levels to get more then $30 per hour. I have NIC Advanced and still make less then $30 per hour as a freelance interpreter.
Please remember that interpreter pay rates vary greatly from state to state. It would be in my wildest dreams to make $45 per hour as an interpreter.
FYI – I agree with everything else you said
The link is here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020035612
I am surprised that hearing persons posing as a deaf person use the IP-relay system…how can the assistant tell if the person is deaf or hearing…perhaps a way should be found to stop this abuse. How about adding an id and password to indicate one is really deaf or HOH before the assistant relays the call. Or you got a better idea.
It is interesting to me that Purple cites: “On the other hand, the FCC’s prohibition on financial incentives, if interpreted to an illogical extreme, could effectively both (1) prohibit TRS providers from hiring deaf, hard-of hearing, and speech-impaired individuals in any capacity that requires them to use TRS services in the course of conducting their business…”
Such as their (Purple’s) many previous illogical extreme interpretations that led to their share of the exploitation of the TRS fund simply because the FCC failed to clarify in detail what is permissible and what isn’t. Examples of extreme illogical interpretations:
1. Quality Assurance via VRS
- deaf/hoh Purple customer svc reps. receiving point to point calls from video users needing customer svc and the Purple rep calling into a “conference bridge” via VRS for the one-sided call (what is visible to the VI to voice) to be monitored by a hearing supervisor either live or recorded.
2. Tier 1 Customer Svc Reps
- Setting up an all or near all hearing tier 1 customer svc rep. group to provide customer service via the use of VRS only to have to send it up to tier 2 because the hearies are clearly incompetent (not adequately trained?) and seemingly following a script that intentionally prolongs the call while handled through VRS.
3. Confirmation Calls:
- deaf talking to deaf via VRS by both calling a conference bridge to confirm receipt of of a Purple number. Then it evolved to conferencing in a 3rd person (hearing rep.) to do the confirming.
Those are just a few examples of Purple’s illogical interpretations of the use of TRS as intended by the ADA. If anything, what the FCC could do in clarifying rules for these bozos is to help erase the dollar signs off deaf/hoh people’s images and help contribute to a better image of a deaf/hoh person’s work abilities and potentials rather than being seen as a walking cash-cow for by an employer. It makes me think of those cartoons of starving cannabalistic animals looking at a friend who has morphed into a drumstick and their unsuspecting friend suddenly morphs into a chicken drumstick and they can’t understand why their friend is suddenly salavating at them.
oops, my message was submitted by accident. The drum stick analogy didn’t come thru correctly. But I think you get my point.
Respectfully to Gene Treeman –
I do not know about the other VRS providers, but I know CSDVRS (service brand now ZVRS) has publically denounced Sorenson’s business practices by name at http://www.drzvrs.com/?p=1493.
Just this week, they filed a complaint to the FCC claiming several other VRS company are threatening customers with removal of their VPs for not making enough VRS calls or lying and saying their phones will have all their features if they use their videophone with another provider. They provide a concrete fine policy to reduce this abuse. See Ed’s blog http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/petition-by-csdvrs/ .
They also filed a complaint with the FCC (along with Purple and Snap) earlier in the summer about Sorenson not following callerID standards – see http://www.drzvrs.com/?p=1107.
In my opinion, CSDVRS is a clean company working ethically to earn customer the right way, and taking the responsibility to call out abuse of the system.
CNW,
You have valid argument. I think ultimately there should be a compromise somewhere. Reasonable accommodation applying to VRS is intriguing idea. Obviously, a video interpreter utilized by deaf staff of the same VRS provider will cost VRS provider lot less than VRS rates. Keep in mind, however, by tying up the time of video interpreter, VRS provider loses the full VRS rate, and absorbs the at-cost. Guess there are several options: I wish FCC luck in coming up with fair compromise.
AMG,
IP Relay providers have different ways to block the scammers. Not all the same.
Ed
how about taking the functional equivalency concept to mean provision of equivalent resource? if i were at purple HQ and participating in a staff meeting, no matter how many of us were deaf, you can bet there would be only one interpreter. therefore, on a vrs conference call with multiple deaf callers i think the minutes generated through one video interpreter would be acceptable compensable minutes. i know the technology exists for this, but not the financial impetus.
CNW has a perspective that i like, that these vrs calls are essentially vri. however, i dont think purple filed this petition with good intentions. knowing fully their previous practices, i perceive this as an appalling attempt by purple to retroactively legitimize their past practices.
I’m tired of having to verify many times that I’m an user of A-S-L and D-E-A-F. Why don’t we form a national database which would subject all applicants for all relay services and videophone services to audiological tests conducted at Federal centers using Federal employees not private contractors which I know many are dirty. Fraud is so rampant. I know one on the 2009 U.S. Deaflympic team actually is hearing and a whistleblower reported this to a large corporation which I know summarily declined to be a sponsor. I know a few hearing CODA are in state-run schools for the deaf. How about that just for starters? Just for once and taxpayers pay for it but long-run outlooks have fraud significantly minimized and less taken from the U.S. treasury. It’s about time we get tough! Stop the parasites!
Wow. I’m surprised a VRS company would actually petition the FCC along those lines, bringing these issues out into the open. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant… (With apologies to Justice Brandeis.) Still, this is a shrewd move by Purple Communications.
I hope the FCC will accept Purple’s petition and open up a rule-making process for the issues outlined in this petition, and as well as any other issues germane to VRS usage. I am fairly confident that the rule-making process will shed significant guidance for the FCC in creating a regulatory framework that will benefit VRS consumers and lend stability to the VRS industry.
Now, to comment on the petition itself specifically; it speaks the truth about employment opportunities, or the very lack thereof, for Deaf/HH people, even in the 21st century and the ADA being 20 years old. However, in addressing these inequalities, the FCC should not do so at the expense of the VRS industry. i.e., abuse/misuse of VRS minutes jeopardizing the health of the entire VRS industry.
I also have serious misgivings about Purple’s assertions that multi-party calls, without reference to the origin/identity of the participants, would be reimburseable by the NECA fund. I’ll follow the rule-making/commenting process for sure! Guidance in an adversarial arena such as the FCC rule-making process will certainly shed much needed guidance on this issue.
Todd W. makes a beautiful point. The point of video relay (and all other kinds of relay) is to allow people able to communicate on the telephone in a way that enables them to live their lives, including using the phone to do their jobs. It is not to create new job opportunities to work for the relay provider directly, although we all welcome those opportunities and want them to exist. All I’m saying is that job creation is not the intention of the law (ADA) that creates relay. The Americans with Disabilities Act is about creating accessibility, not new jobs. However, wherever jobs can go to members of the Deaf Community, they should! The reason is not the law, but just because it’s a good idea. I guess Purple needs to learn the difference. I can understand their request for clarification, but whining about job creation in this particular context is not going to work. (As an aside, Purple does an awful lot of whining. Sometimes the feelings are justified, and I support their point of view, but the behavior seems unprofessional. When they whine about other relay providers who file things with the FCC, I question the professionalism of the presentation. After all, they put out some pretty freaky FCC filings themselves! Close down the 20,000 minute centers? Remember that one from Purple? Everybody’s equally guilty of weird, self-serving filings- – deal with it!)
Let me get back to the point here. Should the government allow people who are Deaf to use their own provider to make provider-related calls to hearing people when they are taking care of business throughout their workday? If not, how can they communicate? And if so, how can we prevent them from intentionally ramping up the minutes beyond what is necessary in an attempt to benefit their own companies? The idea of the break-even rate is interesting, and in a normal circumstance, I would agree that it is the appropriate solution. However, video relay can hardly be called a normal circumstance. If you want to find a break-even rate for a video relay company, you have to take into account not only the interpreter’s salary, but the salary of their team, the benefits for both interpreters including the workers’ comp insurance payments that are higher than they would be for someone with a less dangerous job, a fraction of rental or purchase the building, rental or purchase of the equipment in that particular cubicle, a portion of the Internet services, supervision for these interpreters, other administrative employees necessary to employ these interpreters, liability insurance, tech support, and the necessary but often-forgotten fees to become a carrier. There are probably other costs, but I do not know them all because I do not manage. Once you add up everything it takes to employ the interpreter or interpreters and run all the services on a particular call, you would likely come up with the reimbursement rate itself or slightly higher, anyway. I know of two or three companies that are already operating at a break-even rate for every call that they do. One of them actually is Purple. That is why they’re doing this. They need those minutes just to avoid changing their name from Purple to Red. The government keeps cutting the rate. I cannot support further cuts. Cuts hurt interpreters, and the pain is passed on to the consumers. All that results from even the smallest budget cut is longer hold times, interpreters being forced to work longer stretches with fewer and shorter breaks, and seasoned interpreters leaving to avoid injuries and mental exhaustion, so that you end up with lousy interpreters when you call. That just can’t be good.
I have always said, “Don’t just complain, – - suggest!” I will practice what I preach here and try to come up with an idea that does not hurt the employees or the consumers, but does create some fairness in this. Why don’t we just require people who are using the video relay to conduct relay business to use the competitors? Nobody is going to want to ramp up minutes for the other guy! They will still have accessible communication, and they will use just what they need and nothing extra. Also, the end result is good. It unites us with a common purpose – -to provide high-quality video relay services with short hold times, regardless of the company. When they make personal phone calls, they can go back to their own providers if they like. Fair? What do you all think?
A large percentage of health-related issues are attributed to numerous conference calls interpreters have to work. Cut down on these illegitimate conference calls then we can revisit the issues. I favor one-tier rate system and stringent policies implemented. We definitely need to stamp-out hearing video relay (and IP) callers especially those who buy videophones through deaf friends and spouses. Kickbacks need to be eliminated meaning the video relay providers needs to set up own call centers.
Can someone help me understand part IV of Purple’s Petition regarding FCC’s prohibition of financial incentives?
I always thought this pertained to comments like “If you want to get a free videophone then you need to use our VRS services” or “If you use our VR services you will get your free videophone before everyone else”. Doing things like this is very widespread and I see it almost everytime I go to a Deaf convention. I have always thought this was unethical.
The way I understand the petition is that Purple thinks this covers financial incentitives for their employees. An example of this is that an installer might get a cash incentitive from their employer for finding a certain number of new customers.
Breaking news: VRS minutes down 15% in July.
thank to fbi for bust viable
I feel Purple is trying to find ways to get around the rule to keep their employees calling to keep the company alive. I believe most VRS company can’t survive with fierce competitions with other VRS company. They have given us a many of option of VRS services to use. We don’t seem to need too many VRS services so they need find ways to stay alive by using their own marketing team or contractor to do some call to promote their service and it also creates jobs for deafies. Like Ed once said it catch 22 for FCC about the jobs issues. We can’t just let FCC whipe out the deaf employee or contractors out of the marketing jobs cuz we all can sue FCC for violating the American Disability Acts for discrimination. I sure most of us can agree to forbid the manufacturing minutes but I still feel it okay for use the VRS for marketing to promote the VRS company only. But inside company conference call should considered manufacturing minutes because they really should go into a conference room in the office complex to conduct their meetings. I been hearing about Purple running up the calls on confernece call for meetings. This is really immature of Purple. Purple should be suspended like Hawk and Viable. I’m suprise Purple is not busted yet but not surprise with Hawk and Viable.
I am very disappointed that Kelby Brick is working for Purple because he use work for NAD to work on ADA laws for our deaf community. Now he working for Purple who believe in manufacturing minutes. *thud* I feel his reputation is done damage now. I wish he would go back to NAD to focus on some ADA loopholes. Or he should leave Purple to work for another VRS company with good repuation to help deal with VRS issues. I just dont feel right of him working for Purple at all. I know he fought hard for us to get 10 digit number and put up a big fight against the Evil Soreonson who was against 10 digit number. He won a big battle with the 10 digit number isses. It did change our life big time for that but again he on the wrong company.
FCC have a deaf lawyer so he should be more understanding what we are going through here.
UPDATE this petition: FCC slap Purple partial dismissal. Say petition no sense no understand with previous filing and as conflict. Of other points in Purple’s petition, FCC think criminal and civil laws apply cover these areas and no comment as FBI still investigate. Purple vlog: funny. This not about deaf rights or employment. This about Purple. Kelby good lawyer make point and arguments but you see FCC is smarter. Purple in danger. Little bird tweeted my ear: NECA holds 23% of August 2009 $ from Purple as more investigate. Purple run around like chicken no head with meetings with FCC. Purple up to no good? Or maybe bad manage? Look at Purple stock record. Bad. A lot of red colors on the numbers. No green. Geez!
(Editor edited this to remove personal attacks)
Response to Purple’s Petition-
In a nutshell, calls with only VRS users on the call are NOT reimbursable. Which should have gone without saying in this relay business Here is the link:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2084A1.pdf
Scot
Hard to believe Purple’s chutzpah in even raising the question.
I agree with the person above who said access was the goal of relay, not job creation. When Purple argues that jobs for deaf people with the relay companies themselves will be threatened unless the rules are interpreted as liberally as possible, they perpetuate the idea of VRS being “deaf welfare.”
The gravy train is rolling to a stop, folks. It’s about time, too.
As a part-time VI, I wish that the criteria for usage and reimbursement for relay calls was not based on a non-disabled person calling someone with a disability, or someone with a disability calling somone without a disability. It would be better if it were reimbursable for any (or both) callers using telecom equipment that is incompatible. That would provide telecom access for ALL Americans. As it stands, dual-relay calls are not reimbusable. As a VI, it takes me from 4-7 times longer to understand and process a speech-disabled hearing caller calling a Deaf VP user. A Speech-to-Speech Relay CA in addition to a VRS CA would take less than half the time, and be much more efficient to process the call, and less costly. Another scenario: an emergency situation where a Deaf caller is using IP Relay (with a mobile device) calling a Deaf VP user for help. Another scenario: Deaf individual incarcerated with the local police station having no equipment for the Deaf individual to call Deaf family, so the police allow the Deaf individual in jail to use their own pager to call Deaf family. The problem is the Deaf family only have a videophone or TTY. Can’t process dual-relay calls, so no contact can be made. Police reuse to call on behalf of Deaf individual. By having the legislation written so that TRS can be used only for disabled to contact non-disabled, or vice versa, so by following that requirement, it automatically limits people with disabilities from contacting each other due to the incompatibility of equipment or modality.
The company I work for has the policy to refuse and disconnect any dual-relay calls. I can’t tell you how many dual-relay calls that have weighed heavy on my heart, due to the emergency situation involved. But the Deaf IP Relay caller is consistently refused connection to a VRS CA to make an emergency call. And the STS CA being refused connection to a VRS CA is another discriminatory policy. The regulatory language authorizing TRS definitely needs to be changed for these settings!
Just looked at the August figures from NECA. Another drop of actual minutes and the gap between actual vs. projected is widening. Manufactured minutes are obviously declining in numbers, but I can tell that there is a long way to go before such calls are no longer reimbursed.
I heard a rumor that the reason why Purple did this filing was because the NECA withheld 23% of a month’s payment due to manufactured minutes resulting from daily meetings involving deaf employees (‘independent contractors’). There was a toll-free # set up and each employee (who happened to be deaf) would call in with its own VRS agent. It appeared to be a major source of income for Purple so it did the Petition and had several meetings with various FCC officials to protect its cashflow. I’m disgusted that Purple thinks they are doing a world of service to the Deaf by employing them to commit fraud under the rhetoric of employment opportunities. Fighting for Deaf rights? I think not.
How about allowing TRS employees to make whatever calls they (or their bosses) want, but they can’t use their own service and must use another?
David J,
I had written to the FCC a letter suggesting that why not for any TRS providers to keep track of all their TRS employees calls (minutes) and then submit that to the FCC to be reimbursed at the interpreter salary. That way providers will not make profit, but allow the deaf employee to make business calls via VRS as needed?
What do you think of this suggestion?
eyes open & thumbs up,