FCC VRS Reform Workshop
17 12 2009All..
On December 17 FCC coordinated a VRS Reform Workshop from 2 to 5 pm. By the way, I attended and so did most of VRS providers. The audience was mostly VRS representatives. I wore a tie which impeccable Jeff R complimented and suspected wife bought it for me (he was right). What must he think of my personal taste, I wonder? ;-]
Anyway, the following link will click to archived video clip of the whole workshop. The first 10 minutes were not captioned, however rest of the video clip was so be patient and view the workshop video clip. It is worth it, trust me. It is about three hours long.
VRS Reform Video Clip
Greg Hlibok, one of the moderator, started by saying VRS is celebrating 10th Anniversary – first started in Texas in 1995 and grew to what it is now. He said a few VRS providers have distorted what VRS ought to be, and did things illegally, so FCC wanted to seek ways to reform VRS if any and how by asking the panelists a set of pre-arranged questions.
Here are the highlights:
Claude Stout (TDI) responded to the quesiton whether rates affected fraud by saying that rates and fraud have nothing to do with each other – that they’re not related. That reducing rates will not resolve fraud issues.
Karen Strauss (KPS Consulting) emphasized that it is lack of FCC’s responses that contributed to free-wheeling abuse of VRS. Couple other panelists echoed that sentiment as well.
Sheri Farinha (NorCal) said based on feedback from her informal poll from consumers that TRS certification should require 50% or more of deaf employment.
Several panelists suggested provisional certification in which start-up providers would be able to provide VRS and by end of probation term (one to five years) will have to show that the start up now have all the necessary items to become fully certified. Necessary items such as own call center, have technical platform, provider 24/7 and so on.
Consensus of most panelists was against allowing states to take over VRS operations. Prefers to let federal keep it at interstate level.
All of them were against competitive bidding, opted for existing marketing competition as the best way. A couple panelists were strong in saying that even with competitive bidding and selecting just 5 won’t work.
Several panelists expressed strongly that FCC should sponsor a whistlebolower program as a way to stop the frauds and protect the whistleblowers.
There is more to it, so please find a comfortable chair, and view whole video clip. It will give you insight. After you view the video clip – please let us know what your reactions are.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
PS: in case link does not work here is the full link
http://www.fcc.gov/live/2009_12_17-workshop.html
The requiest for 50% or more employment of Deaf for TRS should be directed to VRS. The 50% or more employment for TRS should include deaf and hard of hearing people. Hard of hearing are significant users of TRS and should be so recognized as they are underemployed as well.
But look at Viable, a lot of deaf employee. I don’t think hearing loss should be part of the certification requirements. Integrity should be the main concern.
Good start if the FCC follows through. Thought the discussion of hardware and videophones took a backhand swipe at the VP-200 which is fast becoming yesterday’s technology. Fraud will remain so long as the deaf can choose their VRS provider, and the honest deaf consumer will suffer if they cannot choose.
Thanks for participating and sharing this, Ed.
FCC has no enforcement authority in dictating the VRS/TRS industry to employ more deaf people. The drive to have more deaf people employed has to come from the deaf consumers themselves!
One additional highlight should be mentioned that there’s a consensus to see VRS to become more consumer oriented/driven VRS industry. There needs to be more choices in devices, innovations, higher standards and so forth. Now, thats real functional equivalency.
PHIL KAPLAN: Deaf means all different kinds of Deaf including hard of hearing, late deafened, Deaf people with cochlear implant and etc…
Is 50% or more deaf employment reasonable? does that include the operators? If so, that means for every VI, need to have one deaf person working there – clearly an easy way to build up fraud because where is the company supposed to find funds to pay for these employees? Think again.
I think that the FCC should look at ALL PUBLIC videophones and MAKE THOSE INTEROPERABLE with the whole 10-digit numbering system so that ALL PEOPLE across the country can communicate with one another via video communications – that will resolve a lot of our complaints about hearing family members, co-workers and friends. We need to make video access UNIVERSAL – I know I saw that word come up at the FCC VRS Reform panel a couple of times, but don’t think there was any time spent on this. Clearly it’s not the “goal” of the discussion. The FCC has the power to make video access Universal, so that we can bridge the (amazingly huge) gap that still exists between the deaf/hard of hearing and hearing worlds.
I also found it interesting that one of the panelists (can’t remember who) said that VRS is the most desirable service among the deaf and hard of hearing people. Excuse me? Hard of hearing people? HA. I think that we all forget that the “ASL CORE” of the deaf/hard of hearing people is significantly smaller than those who are hard of hearing that wander independently from the community – and their preference is CapTel – and they’re not taking advantage of the system. Why? This is something that needs to be looked at. I think it’s because the deaf community feels they need to create jobs for other deaf people due to discrimination, etc, with the trends of deaf teachers on the decline due to deaf school closings, so a new trend was created – employees of relay companies. What will be the next employment trend for the core deaf community?
Just some additional perspectives that were not discussed in the forum. I don’t think 3 hours was enough time for the FCC to get more than just a peripheral view of the whole situation.
Nice pix — worm’s-eye view! : )
What I found very provoking was when Greg Hlibok, the FCC co-moderator, said that “the naiveness of the service is gone” (7:42). To me this is a frank admission of ineffective program administration on the part of the FCC. They knew for years that fraud and abuse were occurring and long chose the path of inaction, enabling a culture of escalating permissiveness.
Also, I urge people to send in comments to the FCC speaking against rate adjustment. As Claude Stout of TDI said so well, this action will not combat fraud.
I’m also appalled that the FCC is entertaining “competitive bidding.” Companies not selected as vendors will die off as there is no private market for VRS, meaning when the next bidding cycle occurs the only bids will come from the incumbent vendors. This is astonishly… anti-competitive!
Ed,
clarification on the issue regarding competitive bidding VS Competitive Service.
Not all were clearly against it. The consumer groups NAD, VRSCA, NorCAL, TDI were emphatically against it with one exception NAD said “maybe in the future, but not right now where the service is..” or something to that effect.
Jim, Karen, Dr. Jayakar, Dr. Rosston didn’t make any direct comments about whether they oppose or support either one. That would make it 50% oppose/50% no direct opinion.
Dr. Jayakar said that the current system of competitive entry and the current rate methodology were incompatible, therefore the current system of competitive service was not effective in helping the tier system realize it’s potential. Price caps were essential.
Dr. Rosston said, “that competitive bidding would change the nature of VRS; it may be good-it may be bad.”
Jim didn’t comment at all on the subject.
Karen didn’t really address it either.
Excellent coverage!
Sheri, Claude, Karen and Rosaline did an excellent job!
VRSCA said that it was organized because consumers need representation. Does it mean that NAD, TDI and DHHCAN, to name a few, arent representing the VRS consumers?
Personally, I believe that we need to expand abuse to include network abuse and equipment abuse. Creating inconveniences in interoperability and interconnectivity should be considered as abuse.
At least, Im glad that the FCC is looking into this seriously and hopefully will use this workshop as an evidence for the need to expand DRO.
Sonny
[...] Posted by Chevy57 I had missed this vlog yesterday. I need this tape??? Ed’s Telecom Alert FCC VRS Reform Workshop FCC Live: Video Relay Service Reform Workshop, Washington, DC, December 17, [...]
Any word on whether RID was there? Sooner or later they’re gonna have to start paying attention to this stuff…
I did ask FCC to come up with several big computer to store all these information while the Deaf or HOH call for qualified interpreter and Deaf talks one to one on VRS. That way can have accurate meters counted. Why not get one of each VRS to participate on this watchdog and store those data into the big computer that I asked before. It would save us alot of time and that way will not allow anyone from VRS to cheat on meter count.
Or can get NECA to be involved with big computers to store all data and have accurate meter count.
[...] retired Relay Texas Administrator attended and shared about the FCC’s workshop on his blog at http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/17/fcc-vrs-reform-workshop/ It’s interesting to [...]
I think it is a bit naive to ask that 50% of VRS employees are to be deaf(!) – how would this be possible for the larger outfits where there are hundreds if not thousands of interpreters already employed… I think it would be better directed at the senior management levels as there are often a lack of consumer input at board-level meetings. However I would firmly support the whistle-blower proposal – it is extremely vital and must be part of the professional code of ethics for Video interpreters…
Ed Bossom: Thanks for doing this! Of course, I have few things to say. I’m bit puzzled at what Greg Hlibok said about 10th Anniversary and your reference in founding VRS back in 1995. According to the basic arithmetic, it is 14 years?
Philip Mack: Perhaps you’re correct about directing the demand towards the VRS industry. There are large gap between deaf and hearing employees in VRS industry, especially in senior management level. It disgusts me to see that the VRS companies placed deaf individuals in “visible” positions rather than to distribute the numbers of positions towards Deaf people. I know Purple, zVRS and SorensonVRS are guilty of that!
Todd: Big deal! Like Stout said, fraud will occur no matter what. Your repeated claims that Viable cheats and yet, they have many Deaf employees is absurd. All VRS companies cheated. It has been on going for *years* — many people who are involved with VRS industry talked about it for *years*. The way you acted like Viable was the ONLY one and that it is “shocking” is puzzling. Viable was merely doing what it tries to do: To survive in a fierce competition where every VRS company went after each other to win the consumers’ loyalty.
I’m sure you did not know that all VRS companies posted 3rd quarter losses in 2009. Why 3rd quarter losses? They kept on pointing to different reasons but we knew better. All VRS companies stopped/reduced the fraud calls in *response* to Viable’s raids.
There I say it. The cat is out of bag.
Consumer Driven: You are correct. The problem is that the consumers are not used to tell the VRS companies what they wanted. For centuries, they lacked the breadth of accessibility. When they were afforded the breadth of accessibility, they rather not to demand nor push but to demonstrate the appreciation for having an opportunity to communicate without any restrictions. IN turn, the VRS companies then exploited their appreciation and gratuity.
I personally think that the FCC can vigorously encourage/remind the VRS companies to start hiring Deaf people in VRS industry, especially at senior management level (In Richmond’s Purple branch, only *one* deaf person worked in the office out of about 20 employees – Despicable!). And in turn, the VRSCA, NAD and local grassroot organizations can remind each other that they can tell VRS companies what they wanted to see in their companies. I think it takes two to tango, really.
I do not recall nor know any deaf person working for NECA. Is there one? I doubt so. I felt that if there were several deaf people working for NECA, they would have nip the fraud call before it becomes a national headline in the first place.
Aidan Mack: Well said. I’m sick of people trying to classify deaf people in different sub-categories. They’re still all deaf to me.
I want to express my gratitude to Sheri Farinha for throwing her concerns about not enough Deaf people working in VRS industry. The way I see it, I felt the hearing people exploited Deaf consumers to enrich themselves in the process. Where is our pie for ourselves? I want that pie as well! (Thank God for ConvoRelay!)
rp: Sooner or later, RID will have to get involved. RID has been consistent in exploiting Deaf people’s needs for their own gains. Why did I say “exploit”? Name one thing that RID has done for Deaf people or organizations other than “interpreting”. You won’t find any. However, since there are many interpreters working for VRS industry and I was bit surprised that RID was not part of VRS reform workshop.
This has been an interesting discussion — I may have inadvertently allowed the cat out of bag but that’s all right. What concerns me the most is that I noticed more and more interpreters/hearing employers are getting to be aggressive in subjugating deaf consumers by retaliating with various things like reporting to the FCC, media, courts or communities. When Deaf employers/consumers disagree with them, all hell broke loose — I felt that these powers that they wield in subjugating Deaf consumers/employers simply has to *stop*.
R-
Sheri Farinha made a good point at the meeting. She said it’s a necessity that VRS companies start hiring Deaf people at high level management/director position instead of Deaf employees being at lower level positions.
A bit of history and Ed / VRS.
Ed first visited a friend somewhere in Texas and saw him interacting with another hearing person via video. That’s where he got the idea of setting up VRS with interpreter, etc.
That has to be in 1994 or 1995. Then he worked with Texas PUC to see if they could reimburse this service for Texas only. At that time, Sprint was their provider and told Ed they would be willing to provide the service.
FCC finally took over the service several years later and that was 1999. I believe that is what Greg referred to – FCC’s oversight of the VRS industry.
The rest is history
A bit of history in ASL version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UitaE0DjVmA
Viable & their subcontracts were the only one indicted. Until others are indicted, I can’t point my fingers to them. And I was only responding to Phil’s remark.
todd: i thank god for having a common sense.
R-
I’m happy for you.
Too bad the law doesn’t have your common sense.
Ridor,
Greg was referring to when VRS industry became nationwide and started getting paid by federal funds. I am going to try and see if I can find out the exact month and year to verify that.
As for little bit of history: when I worked for State Farm Insurance Company as computer programmer (actually learning via State Farm Insurance On-line – and was “trouble shooter” type of work) and a co-worker there took me to his house – he was a hacker. He had web camera, and watched him talk with other guys. So when I went to Texas PUC, I had this bright idea why not combine interpreter, deaf, and hearing persons into a service and asked Sprint if technically possible. Said yes, so approached PUC about this. Then had trials, rest is history.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Kudos to Sheri, Claude, Karen and Rosaline !!! Keep up the good work, folks.
Todd: The main reason behind Viable’s raids was to issue a warning to other VRS providers that if they continue to bill the FCC with fake minutes, these VRS providers will be caught, prosecuted, fined and jailed.
And the result is what? ALL VRS providers (I have the inside sources!) has indicated that during the third quarter report (the raid occurred in May, the third quarter report covers July, August & September), all VRS companies’ profits were noticeably down.
Now, I’m hearing that Purple already had dismissed its 3% of workforce!
I had heard about VRS companies bilking the NECA/FCC … for about 3 or 4 years! It is an open secret among us all. I’m amused that you did “not” know anything about it. Why do you think TDI Director Claude Stout mentioned that reducing rates will not resolve the fraud issues?
In other words, you need to pull your head out of sand!
Ed: Thanks for the information. I learn something new today!
Cheers,
R-
R-
Random Notes on the FCC’s VRS Reform Workshop on 12/17/2009; Hopefully the FCC will release a transcript of the workshop. This way, I could directly quote the panelists instead of going off my handwritten notes. So, I may be a little bit off in quoting the panelists. Please feel free to correct me. Without further ado, here’s a couple of observations: (I also apologize in advance for the length of this reply.)
Sheri Farinha brought forth consumer comments to the workshop. It is not clear where she collected these comments; I’m assuming the Norcal area. It would be nice to hear from her personally on issues germane to VRS reform. Those consumer comments, by large, miss the point somewhat.
According to Sheri, consumers want employment/business opportunities in the VRS industry. Consumers want Deaf/HH people in management positions, the CEO, or as business owners in the VRS industry. Consumers want VRS providers to have at least 50% of its employees to be Deaf/HH. Consumers want the FCC VRS Provider certification process to incentivize Deaf/HH ownership of these VRS companies. Consumers want greater input in the FCC VRS Provider certification process.
I really don’t have issues with Deaf/HH consumer sentiment and attitudes held towards the VRS industry as a whole. I just feel that such changes in employment and/or ownership opportunities for Deaf/HH people in the VRS industry has to come about in an organic fashion. Consumers will gravitate towards VRS providers who can communicate with them in sign language, and that means hiring Deaf/HH people. Consumers will ditch VRS providers if they feel these companies are not ‘giving back’ to the community, so these providers sponsor Deaf/HH events. And so on.
However, for the long term health of the VRS industry, Deaf/HH people need to make inroads in employment/business opportunities across all industries, not just the VRS providers. The more Deaf/HH people are working in mainstream industries and interacting with the hearing population, the more business that VRS companies will receive. Over-reliance by the VRS industry to its Deaf/HH employees will only lead to a stagnation in its overall business.
Karen Peltz-Strauss made some interesting observations regarding VP equipment and whether the FCC rate methodology should compensate for such equipment. While I feel this issue needs more study, I find myself agreeing with her; ever since the interoperability mandate came about, videophone innovation just kinda stopped. Sure, there are videophone products being made now, but they are being general purpose videophones designed for the mainstream market. (For example, there is no ring flasher signal.) Software-based videophone solutions may be the future, as hardware costs and investment are difficult to recover over time.
Karen also made comments that VRS providers can undertake marketing campaigns and should be reimbursed by the FCC for such efforts. She also cautioned as rules and limits need to be placed on marketing campaigns as they are prone to minute padding. I agree that the FCC should reimburse VRS companies for marketing efforts, but on a different tack.
For certified VRS providers, the FCC could authorize, say, up to $10,000 for a marketing campaign per year. (I took this number off the top of my head; it’s not too much to invite abuse, but is barely enough to initiate a marketing campaign. I think!)
In order to qualify for reimbusement, VRS providers have to market their services to hearing people, to mainstream industries (i.e., banks, major employers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) and use traditional marketing avenues, i.e., radio, the internet, magazines, tv, media… VRS companies cannot use telemarketing practices in promoting their VRS, to avoid the improprieties associated with minute padding and pumping schemes.
VRS companies can still market their services to Deaf/HH consumers, but at their own expense and in whatever fashion they see fit. (i.e., go to Deaf Expo’s, advertise on Deaf/HH websites, sponsor Deaf events…) The reason is that ASL-using Deaf consumers are over-saturated (IMHO) with VRS exposure. They know about VRS. They know about VP’s. They may know a VRS provider or two. Moreover, advertising to Deaf consumers is more about differentiating themselves from the competition.
It is the mainstream market that the VRS needs to tap into, as there are still numerous hang-up’s and misunderstandings about relay services. Moreover, the rate of return on the FCC’s investment in VRS marketing will easily be more than what they’ve paid out; The more companies and entities are aware about VRS, the more they’ll use them, gain confidence, and be more accepting, resulting in even more minutes, and a healthy VRS industry.
Jim Tobias, a panelist on the 12/17/09 workshop, submitted his comments. An interesting read – Inclusive Technologies Comments
It appears that the Deaf community is taking VRS for granted.
It never was intended to be an economic stimulus for the Deaf community. Congress passed the ADA to meet the needs of the disabled. TRS was implemented to help deaf/hoh use the telephone networks to the extent possible (as realized by non-deaf users). In doing so, Congress mandated that the TRS be provided in an efficient manner, along with technically feasible and such TRS users are to pay for the ‘services’ at a rate no greater than those experienced by non-deaf users.
What this means is that Congress had the public interest of allowing all Americans use the telephone networks. That’s all. Nothing more on the requirement of competition (that was a figment of Powell/Martin’s imaginations) or how it had to be done, expect that it had to be efficient and technically feasible.
Keep in mind that the eligible VRS users are quite small. Therefore competition may not be the best answer to meet the needs of deaf/hoh Americans, the intent of Congress. The FCC needs to explore alternative options to see if the needs can be met efficiently and feasibly. This does not mean that VRS providers have to use the latest, top of line technologies.
So the FCC is doing its responsibility by exploring these options.
So, what is at stake here?
The needs of the providers? Or the needs of the consumers?
Keep in mind as to why the providers fought tooth and nail for more than 5 years to prevent registration. They argued that its a violation of privacy while being completely oblivious to the fact that non-deaf users had to register for their phones and other devices. They did not like registration because it would reduce the # of fraudulent calls, which is apparently a stream of $ to them. Is this pro-consumer? Or pro-provider?
Finally, from a legal perspective, the FCC needs to assert that conference calls are the responsibility of the employer under Title I. The accommodations have to be paid for by the employer, not the Interstate TRS Fund. If Purple, for instance, was responsible for meeting the needs of its employees (as we would expect for any other company in the United States), then it would have not used such an inefficient and expensive way to provide for reasonable accommodations. If that is not efficient to the perspective of a private employer, then why in the world should FCC consider this efficient for TRS?
In addition, podcasts and distance learning phone calls are Title II-related, and the providers of these podcasts and courses need to provide for the accommodations, not the Interstate TRS Fund. What would be efficient here would be transcripts, huh?
I’d like to respond to this:
“…Why do you think TDI Director Claude Stout mentioned that reducing rates will not resolve the fraud issues?…”
From the day one we’ve started up Convo Relay, we would only process 100% natural and organic traffic. Because of that, we’ve faced incredible struggles in making sure we have the ability to provide the service keeping the quality level high at the same time.
I appreciate the rates where they are right now so we’d continue to pour the money back into the service level (best interpreters, best technology platform and best products) for the deaf community to experience.
We’re not there yet but the rates allow us to continuously improve the service based on the traffic generated by the deaf community.
If the rates were to be cut, we’d have a harder time doing that. The experience for the deaf caller would decline.
On the other hand, I think the tiered system should have greater separation among the levels. Approximately 20-30 cents between the tiers doesn’t make sense to me – at least according to the figures I’m seeing here.
Give start up companies a chance to enter the market with higher rates, but make sure the companies with high volume aren’t posting huge profit margins unless they’re re-investing the funds into development work.
After all this is supposed to be a public service.
Robin
I agreed with what Robin said. Reduce rates does not make any sense. Increase rates do. Otherwise, either way, it won’t alleviate the fraud issues. We will always find fraud everywhere else. It is our job to police and ensure that fraud do not happen.
That’s it.
Well written, Robin.
R-
Ridor et others,
Found out how FCC perceives anniversary for VRS. It is this coming March 2010 which marks the 10th anniversary of the FCC recognizing VRS based on when VRS industry was first compensated for VRS.
eyes open & thumbs up..
I think this says it all….