Hey that is another good reason. The smaller the specified disability is, the better it is to offer nationwide service as opposed to states. Thanks, Bob, for bringing this up.

eyes open & thumbs up…

That’s good point about TRS Funds being raided by states. When I was with TPUC, there were in fact a couple representatives from Texas Legislature that first approached PUC commissioners, and ultimately referred to me. I had a good talk with them. I basically encouraged them to create a new bill to help out blind people secure reader feature that is subsidized by state. Fortunately they followed that advice and in fact passed a bill. So that worked out even better for blind advocates as now they can focus on that particular bill and improve on it.
eyes open & thumbs up…

eyes open & thumbs up

When I was with DDTP of California, we’d have this RFP outlining the basic requirements for vendors to comply. During the duration of this contract, the vendors were not willing to spend $$ to gain a small share of the market within the state.

Innovation for the TRS contracts within the state level was stifled.

We’re at a point where we’re willing to put the profit back into the technology development and see if it’s going to have an effect on a national level (which will then allow us to at least break even if we get new X customers).

On a state level, it just becomes harder for us to be innovative.

Robin

Before IP Relay, we had Telecommunication Relay Services delivered over a national network of telephone lines but the Relay Services were regulated state by state because the location of the originating and terminating phone numbers was known.

When IP relay (and later VRS) came into existence, the location of one end of the call (usually the point of origin) could not be determined. The decision was made by the FCC to regulate IP relay (and later VRS) at the federal level as an experimental service.

Now that we have Real Local Numbers, once again the location of the origin and termination point of all calls is known. While the “network” is now international, the Service can be identified as “local”.

What if the Legislature in California or Hawaii wants to provide Relay Services in excess of what the Legislature in Montana or Alabama is willing to pay for? Suppose California decides that it is in their interest to pay for Conference Calls over VRS because it increases employment opportunities for Deaf residents, and Montana decides they cannot afford it? What if Hawaii wants to require VRS interpreters to hold RID NIC Master certification or HQAS 5 +H; Alabama decides that a degree in interpreting from a two year community college is “good enough”?

If the US Congress passes Legislation that preempts state regulation of Relay Services, we all get the minimum level of Service and no state has the opportunity to “do better”.

I agree that the IP network (the “Utility”) ought to be regulated at the Federal level (for example, an ISP ought to be prevented from blocking or slowing specific types of traffic).

I believe that Access SERVICES (ie: Telecommunication Relay Services over Internet Protocol) ought to be regulated by the states.

My three cents ..

I think this is dangerous territory. I am inclined to agree with Sherri that the existing model of Federal involvement has a mixed bag of positives and negatives. Had the IP world been originally assigned to state jurisdictions, we might not have what we have so far as IP-enabled communications goes. But I dread the idea of quality assurance being governed exclusively at the Federal level…also, there probably are numerous states rights issues that will be needed to be addressed if the PSTN goes federal.

Bob

Re: the comment about the playing field not being leveled, that’s an interesting thought. By the way, I understand your business is doing great. Congratulations and best wishes with your company’s future.