Comments on: Purple’s Request for Clarification http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/ POSTS ALERTS REGARDING TRS & ITS RELATED ISSUES Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:46:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: edsalert http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-74209 edsalert Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:08:25 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-74209 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, 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,

]]> By: David J http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-74197 David J Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:44:13 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-74197 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? 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?

]]> By: DT http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72786 DT Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:22:27 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72786 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. 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.

]]> By: D. G. http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72741 D. G. Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:22:39 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72741 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! 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!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72720 Anonymous Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:42:39 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72720 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. 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.

]]> By: Scot http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72699 Scot Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:53:15 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72699 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 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

]]> By: anon reader http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72518 anon reader Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:47:06 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72518 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!<br />(Editor edited this to remove personal attacks) 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)

]]> By: Chris http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-72371 Chris Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:10:18 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-72371 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. 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.

]]> By: formlycsdvrs http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-71962 formlycsdvrs Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:57:37 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-71962 thank to fbi for bust viable thank to fbi for bust viable

]]> By: CNW http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/comment-page-1/#comment-71670 CNW Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:28:06 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/08/26/purples-request-for-clarification/#comment-71670 Breaking news: VRS minutes down 15% in July. Breaking news: VRS minutes down 15% in July.

]]>