VRS Projection/Actual
23 12 2009All..
Self explanatory..
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Link:
http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/VRSact_proj-21.pdf
Categories : Alerts, VRS
Categories : Alerts, VRS
Video Interpreter Ex Parte Presentation
22 12 2009Folks…
I see a few comments and emails here and there that basically said where are comments from groups of interpreters?
Well..got this intriguing ex-parte presentation from a group of video interpreters with the name of "Video Interpreters United".
Quote: "Most of the members of VIU are Communications Assistants i.e. Video Interpreters (“VIs”). As VIs, we have experienced and witnessed many variations of potentially if not abusive and fraudulent VRS practices perpetrated mainly by the providers of VRS and their business associates."
About 11 pages long.
Quotables below..
"..the Commission continues to specifically restrict conference calls that do not involve hearing people from being compensable by the Fund; and instead maintain a Multipoint Control Unit (“MCU”) within the unified platform;"
Translation: multiple-persons video conference should be between hearing person(s) and deaf/hoh persons, and that VRS should offer multiple video conference program within VRS platform.
This next quote is an interesting perspective from VIU. What below means is that hearing persons should pay for fees to use VRS-related video phones.
"..that in order to offset costs associated with the provision of VRS-related products and services, providers charge subscription fees to customers for point-to-point calls similarly to what users of non-relay services pay to access the telephone network;"
My reaction this next quote is "hmmmm??"
"..that the Commission compensate providers a flat rate of usage amount rather than a per minute rate of usage based on the device used to access the unified platform for VRS purposes;"
The following statement was strong in its criticism of a certain VRS provider.
"..VI’s including those working for Sorenson are currently compelled to tolerate unhealthy working conditions that not only threaten our physical, mental, and emotional well-being, but also hamper our ability to exercise authority and autonomy in the industry as professionals providing sign language interpretations over video relay.."
Equally interesting is the following statements – I don’t know if this is realistic, though:
"..VIU recommends the creation of a national VRS platform for all providers’ networks that does not impede transparent interoperability between provider networks.."
Strongly suggest you read the ex-parte presentation carefully. After you read this, I know lot of subscribers of edsalert are also interpreters. So both deaf/hoh and interpreters please comment away. As always be civil in your comments.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353122
Categories : Alerts, FCC Issues, VRS
Petition To Indefinitely Hold Porting Equipment Waiver
21 12 2009All..
This is a CSDVRS Petition to the FCC to indefinitely hold waiver of CPE (video phones in this case) not to be portable to another VRS providers citing infeasible and technical difficulties.
"..this porting requirement is unduly restrictive and burdensome to the VRS industry and cannot be readily accomplished".
Basically, CSDVRS and other VRS providers are saying that to port (change) phone number from original VRS provider to a new VRS provider by using the same video phone is not possible due to "infeasible" reasons. Several other VRS providers agree with CSDVRS on that: Viable, Sprint-Relay, SnapVRS and Purple.
If my addled memory serves me right, SorensonVRS said VP can be ported, but will eliminate all the features of Sorenson’s VP.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353228
Categories : Alerts, FCC Issues, VRS
Public Workshop On Internet Access
21 12 2009Folks..
This is seriously an important one! Although not specified for deaf/hoh/speech disabled persons, it does impact people with disabilities. So STRONGLY suggest you follow this, and encourage Movers and Shakers from the disability world to file comments or participate in these round of workshops. You, Gentle Readers, should likewise file comments. These workshops will be held at the FCC on Jan 13 and 19.
Refers to a government website on Internet; check out the following link:
Open Internet Government Website
By the way above has a video clip and it is open captioned. Chairman Julius Genachowski speaking on the Open Internet NPRM. Worth watching.
Basically it is about ensuring that Internet is kept "free and open Internet" where all walks of life including small and large businesses have access to without worrying about Internet providers imposing Internet "fees".
We need to add that access to Internet are and should continue to provide access for deaf/hoh/speech-disabled communities. At the same time, we need to express that FCC should apply Section 255 to the services that are using Internet. Examples are: Video Clip News from CNN, Fox, etc. Right now rules somewhere say that because these news are Internet thus do not fall under Section 255 regulations. Hey, you legal folks, let me know if I got that right or not. If not, please enlighten us.
The danger as I see it is that maybe the FCC "inadvertently" prevent any type of regulation on Internet thus these rules may apply to video news or others on Internet thus we deaf/hoh/speech-disabled are out of luck. Yes, we want Internet to be kept free and open, but at the same time we want to have access to various services that we currently do not have access to (video news are good example).
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Links:
Workshop on Internet: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-295283A1.pdf
Open Internet Gov: http://www.OpenInternet.gov/
Categories : Alerts, FCC Issues
Recent Comments