VRS Industry Speaks Out
21 01 2010All…
Along the same topic on non-reimbursable minutes. Read on..
The underlying message is that the price of inaction may prove to be too great for most of VRS providers then ultimately VRS users suffer as result.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Links:
4 VRS
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020382451
CSDVRS Ex Parte
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355243
The jerk that said $2.00 a minute is the “break even” cost has never operated a relay center.
All the more reason for us to inundate the FCC to point out the error of their seemingly arbitrary and erroneous decisions regarding some of the VRS features Ed was talking about in his other presentations. I’m sure the FCC would like to hear from us so be sure to formulate your responses clearly and specifically.
Tousi,
Exactly! Inundate is what we need to do.
Charles,
(chuckling)
eyes open & thumbs up..
I anticipate FCC starts to open transparent information with public soon. I must confess that I like the CSDVRS’s one of proposed rule: “Prohibit Compensation for Customer Support through VRS.” Bingo, that’s an ideal opportunity for all VRS providers to create jobs for deaf and hard of hearing. So let’s see what FCC has to say on this.
Of course I did my part by file an complaint to FCC.
Spoke with a friend about FCC’s seeming inaction in regard to issues involving VRS reform. We agreed that the silence meant that the FCC is still ‘investigating’ the industry as a whole. Also, look up #5 in this FCC ruling.
That said, the FCC needs to address these issues, and the sooner, the better! I see no reason why they cannot open these issues up for public comment and formal rule-making, even if their OIG and FBI brethren are investigating the industry. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant.
AMEN!
The jerk that said $2.00 a minute is the “break even” cost has never operated a relay center.
Hey Ed,
I’m seeking your neutral opinion based on your experience as a state TRS administrator. Has the TRS industry ever experienced fraudulent activities such as those in the VRS industry in the past couple years? If no, to what do we attribute this fact? States’ oversight and management of TRS under FCC regulations?
Now if FCC decides it has had enough headaches and makes VRS a mandated service in all 50 states do we expect fraudulent activities of some kind at that level? If not then why don’t we move the oversight of VRS from FCC to states?!?!
I understand ramifications of moving to states such as deaf and hard of hearing employees losing jobs, etc. But the move may remove or move past this ugly black mark in our deaf history.
Pondering,
Good question.
First of all be aware that frauds, etc. happen only with Internet-based relay services. Not with regular TTY services. Due to the nature of Internet, IP Relay and VRS (both Internet-based relay services) are better left to federal regulations. But what about these frauds? Here is the next comment.
The biggest issue is the oversight responsibility and funds to support a full-fledged oversight responsibilities. FCC does not have the funding necessary to do a thorough oversight activities. So will states have the necessary oversight funding? It depends. For example, in many states regulatory agencies often allocated about 10% of responsibility for relay services to a regulatory staff. Texas, Maryland, California and few states are exceptions. They have full staff who does nothing but work on TRS issues. Most do not have that.
Be aware that Congress is going to try address the lack of funds for FCC and may introduce a bill that will adequately fund FCC to do a thorough oversight. This is probably the preferred method as it will make it possible for consumers to choose one from several choices whereas with states likely will have no choice but use one provider. The exception is, of course, California. Even then, not best of solution.
Good question, pondering.
There are more issues to that, and I hope to do a vlog on that one of these days.
eyes open & thumbs up..
I just received an email from a professional development provider promoting a new webinar in which I am interested. This quickly made me realize I’ve taken professional development classes now and then for more than 20 years. Remember how you would respond to a newspaper ad placed by such companies whose presenters travel across the country giving seminars at hotels? Upon their acceptance of my registration I would call via TRS and ask them to provide interpreters for the seminar I registered for – ADA requires them to provide such accommodation.
Nowadays these companies provide webinars and are they still required by ADA to provide interpreters? If yes then I guess that’s the rationale behind FCC’s consideration to ban usage of VRS for webinars. This is as simple logic as I can come up with to see this issue from FCC’s perspective. What’s your take on this?
However I am still very concerned about other restrictions being considered (i.e. customer service support, etc).
Pondering: you are on the right track. VRS providers have been encouraging its customers to call these webinars because it provides a large and steady stream of income. However, they forgot that Title II of the ADA requires that the webinar providers are to provide for the accommodations themselves.
Yes, using VRS makes things a lot easier and may make a lot of sense economically to the perspective of the deaf consumer, but legally-wise, it is not the responsibility of the VRS providers to provide accommodations. Nor is this okay because it provides economic opportunities to the Deaf community as some providers would claim.
If I was an employer and had a deaf employee, I would strongly consider hiring an interpreter at the rate of $50-$60 an hour instead of using the TRS Fund and use regular phones. But let’s suppose that the FCC says it is ok for VRS to provide VRI but that as I am an employer, I would have to assume these costs, do you seriously think I would want to pay $390 an hour if I can find equivalent accommodations elsewhere at a much cheaper price? Why is it ok for the TRS Fund to pay for these accommodations at a very exorbiant price? That is why the ADA requires TRS to be performed EFFICIENTLY! It is not a blank check.
let the states take over and there will be less FRAUD. $6 per min is too much in my opinion.
Warren
Comments such as $6 per minute is too much only plays into the hands of the largest VRS provider as they have a level of service that is sufficient for them to continue their service at a lower per minute rate. I fear that a lower rate would result in smaller VRS companies going under and that company increasing its market share at the cost of service quality and effectiveness. In most European countries only one company runs TRS each country – a monopoly – and guess what – they are still stuck in the TTY era – there simply is no incentive for them to progress beyond that of a TTY relay service(!) Competition on a level playing field stimulates innovation and improvement – do you want to forsake this?
Ed’s suggestion of a multi-tiered system (more than the current two) would both encourage smaller outfits to develop and make larger companies more efficient by deploying strategies that make the best use of economies of scale available to them. This is what I call a level playing field!