Ed’s Telecom Alert

Folks…

Consumer Groups – National Assoc of the Deaf, Telecomm for the Deaf and HOH, Assoc of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Deaf HOH Consumer Advocacy Network, Calif Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf/HOH, Hearing Loss Associaiton of America, and America Assoc of the Deaf Blind – submits petition to the FCC.  Basically Petition is asking the FCC to issue a notice and comment rule-making proceeding on the matter of limiting or restricting certain types of Video Relay Service (VRS) calls such as conference calls, recording calls, etc.   

HURRAH!    

Looks as if the NECA and FCC are hammered from all sides now:   Consumers, VRS providers, and National Deaf/HOH groups on what all perceive to be not reasonable actions taken not to reimburse minutes of certain features.  Coming from this powerful groups have to have an impact on FCC.

Keep in mind that NECA is doing these actions under directives from FCC.  Keep in mind also, that the supporting FCC staff are issuing directives based on the 8th Floor’s decisions.  8Th Floor getting directives from (?) Congress or powerful lobbyist?   Or influenced by media?  Probably combination of several factors. 

To be sure FBI arrests, frauds, VRS providers looking for loopholes and all that created the situation.  However, I think pendulum went from one extreme side to the other extreme side.  FCC needs to find a balanced decision that is fair for all.  

Consumer Group Ex-Parte

Quotable quotes:

"..have learned that some VRS providers are either not connecting or may stop connecting certain types ofVRS calls because the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), the TRS Fund administrator, is withholding payment for certain types of calls."

"Not connecting certain types ofVRS calls is inconsistent with Section 64.604(a)(3) ofthe Commission’s rules, harms consumers, and is not functionally equivalent to the communication access that hearing telephone users enjoy.."

"Congress clearly expected that all types o f telecommunications services, using both existing and improved technologies, are to be made available to people with disabilities."

Consumer Group offered rationales which make sense as to why certain telephone features should be offered to the deaf/HOH.  Worth reading…

Check this link out:

NAD Comments

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020383912

NAD:
http://www.nad.org/news/2010/1/fcc-actions-block-consumer-vrs-calls

All..

All..

An ex-parte letter from Minority Media and Telecommunications Council expressing concerns not unlike we deaf/hoh have. 

Minority Ex Parte

Quotable quotes:

"The Commission should ensure that net neutrality rules are neither written nor applied in a manner that adversely affects the participation of minorities online and in society."

"Permanent digital second-class citizenship is unacceptable on every level. The Commission must avoid the enormous social and moral costs that would attend the creation of a permanent digital underclass and consider the impact of its race-neutral policies on minorities."

So we’re not alone, and we have to fight to get our inherent rights.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

All…

Hopefully this will help give clarity to what the [bleep] is going on with problems of VRS industry and federal governments (mainly FCC, though).

Check this out…

ADA Explained

Title I covers employment.    

Does that mean companies/businesses who have deaf/hoh should pay for Interpreters to do conference calls?  The problem is most companies will not do that cuz it is expensive.  Cheaper to go through VRS.   Hence this dilemma VRS and federal agencies are having now.

Title II Part A covers public entities.  So does that mean webinars, podcasts, etc should be covered under this?   The problem is will these providers of webinars, podcasts, etc be willing to provide an interpreter for these?   Answer?  Likely not.

Title III covers private entitles.   Again lot of private telephone services are provided, should that fall under that title III?  Answer?  Likely not.   

Title IV covers telecommunications.   Well, it looks like to access telecommunications means to have access to everything that telecommunications offers.  So should all the above services indicated fall under this?    Several VRS providers seem to think so.   See Jeff Rosen’s comment recently on this very issue.    

So that’s the dilemma VRS and federal agencies (FCC, DOJ, etc) are having right now.  

These problematic issues have gone long enough.   I think – no, I know I speak for all of USA deaf/hoh citizen that we’re ready for stability so please please Decision Makers make decision very soon.   Remember that some of the VRS providers who "cheated" utilized "functional equivalence" as reasons why these services should be provided. 

Clearly VRS industry needs clarity of relay regulations so they can go ahead and provide the services as they should.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

long link:
www.adata.org/whatsada-structure.aspx