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
This is awesome for VRS, something we have been needing. I am so glad I do not have to do anything but join. If we all come together, as VI’s, we can make the change happen.
I wonder who VIU is?. I looked at their website and do not see any information as to how they were formed. Nor is there any contact information for further information on their website.
With their long Ex Parte Presentation to the FCC it’s easy to get the impression that they are speaking for all video relay interpreters.
With no contact information, no information as to who they are, how they were formed and how many members they currently have, it’s difficult to take their suggestions and imput seriously as a viable voice for the VR workforce.
Ed,
I may be wrong but I think that the paragraph below is actually suggesting that we do away with the free VP point to point calls between deaf people to each other by introducing a per minute call charges just as it is for other telephone users. I think that in a manner this is already done by ZVRS in their monthly subscription attaching to the sale of their videophones and I can see this becoming a standard revenue item for many VRS providers to recoup costs incurred by giving away subsided and/or free videophones…
“..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;”
But as deaf “kiss fist” free, this will certainly cause an uproar???
Smile
Jeff
>> “…users of non-relay services pay to access the telephone network;”
We are already paying for access to the internet; why should we pay twice?
>> “… providers charge subscription fees to customers for point-to-point”
But consider:
>> ” … deaf “kiss fist” free”
As in Skype, iChat, Xmeeting combined with Netbook computers selling for less than $300 EQUALS providers net income from point-to-point calls will be Zero.
>> ” … As always be civil in your comments.”
As in Ed is from Texas: he recognizes bovine based fertilizer when he sees it ….
Uproar? Yes, I would think so. I also think it’s inevitable. “Free” is an open invitation to exploit to the fullest extent. In the early years this has been a wonderful thing. Now, however, we are seeing that the expense of this “free” service is incredibly high. Once the cost hits a billion a year, taxpayers are bound to take notice. Horror stories about endlessly long calls for no purpose are bound to be refuted with, “Hearing people make long, pointless calls, too,” which will lead to, “Yes, but they pay for it themselves.” I have no gripe with two kids watching Dancing With the Stars together, hour after hour, without much at all to say to each other. I have more of a gripe at paying $6.50 a minute so that they can do so without limit, forever and ever.
I fear the current system is simply unsustainable. How many millions of dollars last year alone was derived from our Deaf communities only to wind up in private pockets? To date, our Deaf communities have reaped an enormous benefit from this service. As the quality of the “free” interpreting continues to decline, however, this benefit is less clear. As the cost continues to rise, taxpayers who do not have free, unlimited, international phone/secretarial service might just begin to ask questions.
Sure, bring on the monthly subscription for point to point calls. If that ever happens, I’d dump my videophones in the trash and use alternative methods such as Skype, GTalk, iChat, Camfrog, Fring, and so on. That’s being consumer driven.
I’m not interested in a stale unified VRS platform. I prefer to see competition to continue foster growth in each Provider’s VRS platform.
The interpreter issues with Sorenson; just quit and work for another VRS provider. That’s competition. If there was a national VRS provider, the interpreters will be out of luck.
I would like to remind everyone that using VRS is not free for the deaf person in the true sense of the word. You are still required to purchase high speed internet. As a former installer I can tell you that about 1 out of 4 VRS users do not use their high speed internet connection for any other purpose than to use VRS. So any monthly fee that the VRS equipment provider imposes is in addition to the cost of high speed internet. The cheapest high speed internet that will work with a videophone in my area is around 25 dollars per month. There are still thousands of deaf people who do not have access to VRS because they cannot afford high speed internet.
The “Flat Compensation Rate” is very confusing to me. The current system is already using a flat rate of $6.50 per minute. I am not sure if they mean a flat rate per call meaning that a call that takes 5 minutes will be reimbursed at the same rate as a call that takes an hour? Someone will have to clarify that for me.
As for the issue of the VI work conditions I think it would help to remove the contractual requirement that force VI’s to wait one year after they have left the job before they can work for another VRS provider. If a VRS company offers better pay and work conditions than SVRS it is very hard for a VI to quit Sorenson and work for that company. For many interpreters that depend on Video Interpreting for their primary source of income waiting one year to work for another VRS company is not an option. Sorenson and other VRS companies should be forced compete for interpreters with pay, benefits, and work conditions rather than trapping as many of them can through contracts.
Tax payers do not pay for VRS. Carriers are required by law to make their communication services accessible to people with disabilities. Carriers could establish their own VRS centers– and some indeed have—- but most prefer to contribute to a fund that is overseen by the FCC. Each common carrier contributes 0.01137% of their telephone service revenue.
Jeff et others,
When you read whole presentation, it is referring to hearing persons.
That said, the “free” mentality where deaf/hoh persons in most of his/her lifetime gets free stuff has been an ongoing controversial issue. I hope to tackle this in the future post on this very thing.
CR, as for reimbursement rate, it is not a flat rate per call, it is a reimbursement rate per minute. In other words, it is $6.50 per min regardless of how long the call is.
Everyone, keep these comments a-coming.
eyes open & thumbs up…
Bob,
Good question on who VIU is. Anyone can enlighten us on that?
Maybe they’re working for several VRS providers and do not want their names be known otherwise they would be fired?
eyes open & thumbs up…
If those interpreters within VIU want to be taken seriously. I urge them to join an Union. Out of countless Unions, I recommend Communications Workers of America.
Jeff,
Thanks for the clarification. I was under the assumption that the common carriers passed the cost of their NECA contribution on to their consumers in the form of some sort of access fee? I know I have seen something like that back in the days when bills actually came in the mail. And even if it isn’t teased out as a separately defined fee, that cost certainly is passed on in other ways, no?
rp
CR,
Thanks for the info. Wow! 25% of VRS users use their high speed internet connections only for VRS? That number seems awfully high to me, since it would suggest that 25% of VRS users don’t have videomail capabilities. That’s not the percentage I see as a VI, where videomail nowadays seems commonplace, and the lack thereof a rare exception. Unless they are piping their videomail through their BB or iPhones or somesuch?? I guess I just wonder that people with BB or iPhones wouldn’t be more apt to use existing high speed connections at home for other purposes as well.
And I really don’t think the vaunted “no-compete” clause has much of an effect. I know that one provider cheerfully informs its recruits that they will take care of any legal expenses incurred. A representative of that company tells me that they have never had a problem with the clause being invoked. Likely this is mostly bluff, bluster, and intimidation; SOP (sadly) for some in the industry.
Happy Hollandaise, all.
rp
A union is what is needed. My original comment was stating to be unionized as Video Interpreters where we too have a voice in VRS.
The argument is “we have to pay for internet, so we pay twice!”. Okay.. I pay for internet, too, as well as paying for my phone. I pay $45 for internet, data on my phone is $40-50, and THEN I pay for phone minutes, which is another $50.
This goes for all minorities wanting equal rights, women, black, deaf, etc.– equal rights do not mean special rights.
I don’t want special rights because I’m a woman. I want to prove i’m EQUAL, not that I deserve special treatment because I can’t do it myself.
The reason RID isn’t putting itself where VIU has is because RID is afraid of losing any of Sorenson, Purple, ZVRS and whomever else is left’s money.
Any organization that accepts more money from the companies it’s members work for (Sorenson, et al.) than it does from it’s members, no longer serves the membership, they serve the membership’s employers.
RID has officially been bought off.
RP,
Thanks for the comments.
I would be weary of using videomail to figure out what percentage of deaf and hoh have computers. There are several reasons one could provide an email address without actually having a computer. As an installer I had several people give me an email address to use for videomail even though they had no computer. Here are just a few of the reasons why:
-Many deaf use an email address of a family member or a close friend who will relay the info to the deaf person when they get a videomail email.
-When you sign up for high speed internet many companies will give you an email address whether you have an computer or not. I have been given this email address to use for videomail even though the deaf user might not be able to access email account.
-Some deaf people will go to a friend’s house or the library to access the email account.
-Some people make up an email address “just in case” they ever get a computer.
-Many have broken computers and only keep their high speed internet turned on for VRS.
-And as you have stated many have email for their smartphones. Even after I explained that videomail would not work on the smartphone many insisted using the email anyway.
My figure of 25 percent is not a scientific study. It is based purely on my observations.
You have a point about the no compete clause. I was trying to figure out why a VI would stay with Sorenson when there are other VRS companies to work for and the not compete clause was the only reason I could think of. One thing I didn’t think of is that in many cities Sorenson is the only Call center available and VIs do not have any other option if they want to do Video Interpreting. I guess another option like Alexander says is to unionize the industry and force companies like Sorenson to negotiate work conditions instead of offering “take it or leave it” contracts with individual interpreters.
CR
Imagine if Sorenson didn’t agree with what the union requested, and they couldn’t agree to a new contract; all Sorenson VRS interpreters go on strike. That’s a lot of power. And a lot of delays in your phone calls.
CR,
Thanks for the education on the videophone issue. It really helps put things in better perspective for me.
As for unions, well… I am a proud member of four different unions/labor organizations myself, and I just don’t see it ever happening in VRS. Nor do I think it would be a good idea.
I do know that there are some active discussions going on about Communication Workers of America, the union that represents other call center employees at places like Verizon and ATT. Interpreters need someone to stand up for them and for interpreting. Since RID has basically decided to roll over and let the industry scratch its belly, union representation sounds like a good idea. However, if we ever meet up in person someday, I’ll tell you about what happened to caption editors back in the 80s when NCI’s treatment of them became so intolerable that they decided to join NABET.
Bottom line was they did unionize. It wasn’t pretty and the result was not positive. But at least they all got membership cards! And dues…
rp
A union, will not cure the problem. What’s needed is regulation from the FCC. If taxpayers are paying for the service, and really these vrs providers are “brokers” for the government. The government needs to provide more regulations that resolve the issue of working conditions. But this needs to include working conditions and transparency on how the companies assign hours. NO VRS provider should be telling employees that they can’t work for another company if they choose to leave the company to work for someone else. They should also be questioned about how they assign hours. There seems to be favoritism operating in centers . So, I am in favor of regulations, all VRS providers have to operate the same way. Too much secrecy, as if consumers are paying for the service There should be no competition allowed. Companies should operate as they please. I am uncomfortable with unions. The reason? a substantial part of my check will have to go to pay the President of the union and its croanies…… so that they can become filthy rich.. no I am against that idea.Just regulate and allow the companies to operate with fair and reasonable working conditions without the concern about how much we are loggedin and what the efficiency rate is…. there is the temptation for greediness to get a hold of all of the VRS providers.
Intimidation and monopoly… many large companies in the US have historically controlled the “market.” I refused to use AT&T and Bank of America for years because of their monopoly but then it was AT&T who showed up to install and Bank of America who provided excellent customer service where others were never loyal to me as a customer. In the Deaf community, Vocational Rehabilitation was “Big Brother” and I refused to let them control where and with whom I would work. Today, VR is the largest provider of interpreter services but they do not directly control where and with whom interpreters work each and every day.
Fact is Sorenson is the largest employer of VRS interpreters. Because of volume, they have certain power and benefits. Interpreters broke away from Sorenson and they broke away from Purple when Purple went Corporate and many are burned because the smaller struggling companies can not compete (as we know for various reasons)… real life, real interpreters are afraid to challenge an employer, afraid to rock the boat. The “Right to Work” is a given in Texas as a right to work State but interpreters are still afraid to challenge the contract. With a reduction in minutes, interpreters are experiencing lay offs, interpreters are having to go back to pursuing community work which requires much more sacrifice and carries a greater cost to do business, lowering their bottom line income.
Important to me personally is that deafness and people who are Deaf take responsibility to participate fully in society. Pay the same price everyone else pays. When you are a second class citizen, society feels they owe you something and makes “special” programs to try to appease you while denying participation in the main stream. “Free” is never free unless it falls from the sky. When I was a kid, my parents did not afford a telephone. We went to the neighbor, to another friends home or used a pay phone. Pushing for airports, office buildings, etc. to install video phones would be much more productive than expecting everyone to have a “free” service. In the same vein, if I buy a telephone, no one should have the right to tell me who I can or can not call. We have two different products here in our office and they do not communicate with each other. We can not publish one telephone number for equal access by all who wish to call. Each VRS company blames the other for not opening ports. Corporate offices are not expected to provide access to telephone systems by employees and customers who are deaf. These games continue for months and years. There is no excuse for this. These are the bigger issues because these are issues that effect a persons right to participate.
..and what about the smaller VRS companies popping up that do not provide services to everyone… What is this all about? If I am a physician, and I want to call another physician using VRS, it would be nice to be coded into a phone bank where medical specialty interpreters are working. If I work for a Federal office, it would be nice for calls from my office to be routed to interpreters who know government acronyms, who have experience with common terminology used on those work situations, lawyers, coded to a bank of interpreters in legal specialty but for a VRS company to say “Call us only if you of a certain religion or cultural community or minority…” we will not advertise or claim to service everyone… something just seems skewed.
Lastly unionization… if you live in a Region of the country where you are used to Union representation, you may feel this is a solution but those Unions standing strong for generations have failed miserably in recent years, (ie: automakers, postal workers). Look to the future. take the amazing technology which is developing and design a truly accessible system that works for everyone, bottom up.
I am of parents who are Deaf, relatives who are Deaf. I have the deafness gene flowing in my veins. I look for responsibility on both sides, deaf and those who can hear. I see them both as the same, both as different as any peoples are different but I refuse to accept excuses on either side. Life is never easy but quality of life can be good.
My name is Gina Gonzalez and I am a co-founder of the group VIU. We currently have 8 founders (5 hearing, 3 deaf). We invite more to join as founders. We are currently exploring how best to exercise the VI voice for collective bargaining.
In the meantime, we are actively participating in reforming VRS.
Neither I nor VIU speak for all video interpreters or interpreter groups.
It is our goal to impact the VRS industry in positive ways for all concerned. We have opinions (they may be out of the box, but I do not think that they are impossible) and we know that not everyone will agree. The important thing is that we are having a discussion about the issues and that at least some part of the interpreter voice is contributing more openly.
I would like to clarify some of the items we submitted:
* Sorenson does not shoulder all of the concerns we expressed in our ex parte. They for whatever intentions and purposes have helped the VRS program in many ways; and are to be commended for their efforts in that respect. In fact, many of us (from the FCC all the way to the consumer) shoulder the issues we are contending with today.
* A unified labor platform simply means separating labor from the providers’ networks.
The CA would provide services from within what Jim Tobias (inclusive technologies) recently suggested in his comments to the FCC following the VRS reform forum; basically a PSTN for IP solutions or more relevant a “VRS exchange” network. . P2P product and service features etc. would more likely remain in the providers’ networks for competition sake, but such features would pass through transparently without resistance within the VRS exchange network.
(On a personal note, if I were to be dependent on a service like VRS to communicate with hearing people, I would prefer a one-stop access point for my VRS needs rather than to be bombarded by 20-30 different VRS brands/labels simply to reach a CA to relay my calls.)
If the FCC were to adopt such a model of VRS provision, would a per minute rate for the VRS provider for billable minutes be justified?
It would definitely justify a reduction of the current rate(s).
A concern we have is if the financial incentive is impacted, would it dissuade providers from continuing to improve on products?
And that is why a rate based on a per access basis rather than a per minute rate based on “device” used to access the “VRS exchange” and P2P access fees were suggested; to give providers an added incentive to continue research and development.
Ed,
You are correct we did suggest that providers be allowed to open their market to hearing consumers for P2P access… Even better is if providers could offer both voice and video solutions over IP, I would become a customer.
I would pay the provider the $33.00 a month that I currently pay for VOIP. I can’t get a video phone from any of the providers as a hearing person and instead have to use other means (Eye2Eye, webcam based video conferencing etc) to make video phone calls through dial around ways or “mooch” my mom’s videophone. I would love to be able to get a10 digit # for both voice and video. Think about the benefits for VRS consumers as a result of a partnership of paying hearing and deaf consumers.
It is a wonderful time and opportunity for innovation and creativity to make its way back into the VRS industry. Even if it means changing how VRS is provided and providers needing to reinvent themselves.
Thank you, Ed for posting our presentation and everyone else for sharing your points of view. There have been some especially powerful ones posted.
Gg
Interpreters need to understand that their role is limited only to interpreting conditions, not telecommunications policies.
Competition is a wonderful and beautiful thing for Deaf consumers. Let us not forget that this same competition is equally beneficial for the interpreter. If a particular VRS company is not for you, the good news is there are many other VRS companies available for you to choose to provide your services. In many major cities multiple centers exist and oftentimes wages can be improved with this competition (along with preferred working conditions).
There’s also the option of not working in a VRS setting, let us not forget that it was not THAT long ago that a Community Interpreter was able to sustain a living without a webcam.
Thanks Ed for your site! A great place to chat about these very interesting issues. Happy Holidays to you and everyone at CONVO from the CODA Brothers Interpreting Center.
Andy Olson
Sonny:
And us consumers should shut up and let the providers decide the policies?
Everyone involved w/ the VRS industry certainly has valuable input to share. Don’t exclude anyone just because they’re interpreters. While they can’t comment on what was said during calls, they certainly can comment on the processes and policies.
Thank you, CNW. I agree that every one involved in VRS has the right to provide input.
Competition for interpreters could be a wonderful and beautiful thing indeed.
Unfortunately, with one provider dominating the market and the drastic drop in call volume for many of the smaller VRS companies there are more freezes in hiring, reduction in interpreting hours, dog eat dog world swap boards, interpreters not getting paid, volunteer time off without pay (sometimes mandatory not volunteer), the list goes on.. There aren’t really many choices available in VRS.
This may not be long lasting, but I would venture to say that it is fast becoming a widespread issue including in major cities.
Many interpreters are serving the community more, which is good news for the community, but chances are that interpreting agencies will prefer the lesser expensive interpreter (probably not as qualified and experienced as a more “expensive” interpreter) and vice versa.
Some agencies may give work or preferential treatment to interpreters who remained “loyal” and the “VI” may find it difficult to get sufficient work or hours that are suitable. So, even if it was not that long ago interpreters could make a living without a webcam that may no longer be the case today due to the influx of less qualified and experienced interpreters available to the interpreting market.
There are so many factors involved; we cannot simply say that competition is good without taking into account the layers upon layers impacting competition. The market has to be in a robust competitive state for competition to be a good thing.
Additionally, without clearly defined minimum standards in wages and working conditions, interpreters are vulnerable to lower wages and unsafe working conditions.
At this point we cannot truly say whether there will be further market disorder in the field of interpreting, but the “signs” are certainly there. Interpreters too can use this time for renewal and/or contribution to change that enables the market to meet our needs as well as the consumers.
David Charron CEO of one of the largest MLS operations in US said,
“Maybe those of us charged with creating the future have too great a stake in the status quo?”
Season’s greetings!
“Right to work” only means that you have the right to work in a field that has a union without joining the union. It is your choice as to whether you would like to pay the union dues and join and have the union protection, or save your money but not have the protection of the union. Unions vary from field to field, and it’s really up to the person to decide. In states that don’t have right to work, you have to join the union if you work in a union field. RID is not permitted to act as a union in any way never has been, even though people asked it to do so long before there was any talk of video relay, back in the 1980s, and they said no. A professional organization and a union cannot be the same thing. A union needs to be formed separately. Is Video Interpreters United a union? I do not even know. Only an expert or an attorney familiar with employment law could answer that question for sure. Historically speaking, unions are difficult to foist on the companies and some unions have had much more success than others. Video Interpreters United is not charging anything to join, so I doubt anybody will get rich. If there ever are dues, the best place for them is a strike fund. One hopes that such an event would ever occur for obvious reasons, but peace of mind is worth the fee. Also, a union without a strike fund is no more than a kid’s club in a tree house; nobody will take it seriously. I have a friend in the Communication Workers Association. Relay operators are not able to join, but perhaps that’s something that should be changed. I do not know. I honestly do not know whether a union would help or hurt or make no difference at this point. I am joining Video Interpreters United this week, just because I want to be united. As for the comment that interpreters should just be talking about issues related to our job, I do not know if that is right or wrong, but I do know that we have not been doing it. We should be doing that, at the very least! Protecting interpreters ultimately protects video relay and makes it better. For those of you old enough to remember the 1970s and 1980s, a crisis was reached in community interpreting, and many people were injured due to overuse syndrome. Those who were not injured were afraid to work. It was ultimately resolved by teaming on many jobs, which cost exactly twice as much as the previous arrangement. This was a difficult issue in the interpreting community and it affected the consumers very much. There was a fear that the very young profession could be lost entirely. It is just one example, but if such a thing should ever happen to video relay, you don’t want to see the results. (Overwork is video relay’s “elephant in the living room.”) Video relay could not whether a crisis such as widespread overuse syndrome quite as easily as community interpreting did, because of the 24-hour nature and popularity of the service. Somehow finding a way to protect the front line is going to preserve video relay and make it last on into the future, which is what we all want. Video relay is a wonderful thing! I hope they mandate it someday, because as far as I’m concerned, it is a matter of civil rights, especially for people who find ASL easier to use than English. And the banks that hang up on relay should be charged with civil rights violations! But that’s another can of worms…
“One hopes that such an event would NEVER occur,” sorry! That was not a Freudian slip – - I use voice recognition because I don’t type anymore. It often hears me wrong. It makes the sound-based errors that you often see in live captioning and I try to catch all of them, but sometimes I miss one or two. Sorry about that! No, I don’t want there to be a strike! I love my job and I don’t want to stop. The best strike is the strike that never needs to happen! Also, there is a such thing as a working strike, where people still work but strike when they are off shift. It is very common in schools. I guess that would be the second best kind. Next time I will proofread a little better.
I’m all for VI having a voice and make their contributions with inputs and rights, but at the same time, from my deaf point of view, I fear that they would view us as less simply because of the fact that some deaf people had adopted “free” mentality. To imply that we might be a dead weight for the society as whole is ridiculous.
We rely on VI for their noble service and they translate our messages across to another hearing party. I can only hope they are honest about it. We often have to share our personal information for many of our VRS calls to verify that we are essentially “me” not the VI. I can only hope that they don’t abuse it. Share the information. That’s the power they have over us, which can easily be misused. Those are among our valid concerns when we give the VIs our very very personal information. So from my point of view, you guys are in a more advantageous position over us with how you translate our messages and how you use our personal information. We can only hope that you uphold your end of bargain without compromising the true purpose of VI.
Tread carefully… don’t make us out to be bad guys or the dead weights. It’s not our fault that ignorance is prevalent everywhere we go. It is hard enough as it is for any of us to even find a job. My deaf fiancee who has a Bachelor degree and has not been able to find any job and is working twice as hard as hearing person with the same qualification. Now she has gone back to graduate school and get master’s degree to even get the same position that she had applied before.
Other than that, by all means, please go ahead and make your working conditions better with better hours and everything. Comfortable VI is better than stressed out VI. We appreciate your service.
Cheers.
[...] http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/22/video-interpreter-ex-parte-presentation/ Share and [...]
Video Interpreting is a quick, convenient way for deaf and hearing people to communicate, when they are in the same room, with the assistance of a fluent video interpreter.
Jared,
No, that is illegal according to the TRS regulation. Only video remote interpreting can be used for that.
eyes open & thumbs up..