Comments on: Inslee Letter to FCC

By: JRR

JRR — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:07:48 +0000

I’d like to see all this (recent FCC Ruling) be shared among the majority. Been trying to get a story in the news, pray they’ll be interested.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:27:53 +0000

Or perhaps a post on Purple’s SEC filing yesterday about them laying off 53 employees on March 19? Does anyone know how many of the employees were deaf?

By: anon

anon — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:07:18 +0000

Ed, perhaps a post is in order regarding CSDVRS’ new petition to allow providers to recover the cost of in-house interpreting. (The argument for why these costs are not adequately addressed through rate-setting — to say nothing of why they are not a Title I-imposed provider burden anyway — is not really clear.)

By: Bobbi

Bobbi — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:44:15 +0000

This is the most encouraging quote I have read from ANY governmental entity in a long time. Not only does it focus on clarifying FCC policies for VRS, but it stresses a reasonable process for enforcing these policies. Breathing sigh of relief. Maybe there is hope.

By: JRR

JRR — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:35:33 +0000

Looking at it in two different shoes: (ADA)

Hearing Business Owners- who hires an interpreter for a deaf employee during meetings, writes if off as a “business expense”.

Deaf Business Owners- who hires interpreters for the deaf employees during calls, is not a “business expense”. However you’re able to make profit off of them.

By: Tousi

Tousi — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:37:34 +0000

“…..notice and comment process….” Yup, that’s the way to do it. Thanks, Ed.

By: no name

no name — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:41:34 +0000

http://commerson.blogspot.com/

An open letter from Alfred Sonnenstrahl…

By: g

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:08:32 +0000

edit “stale” to “stable” in the last paragraph of the quoted passage, but it works either way.

the comments quoted from the letter sound suspiciously like the NAD’s position, which is shamefully illustrative of how widespread their lack of understanding has gone. a NPRM is inappropriate because first, providers are not consumers; second, requiring a NPRM in this instance would make FCC policymaking beholden to EEO concerns rather than telecom access.

d/hh people would still have access to TRS — either via other provider or non-reimbursably via their own provider — the mandated access is assured. the concern is whether they will be employed… hardly a guiding consideration for the FCC. If any d/hh person is laid off by a TRS employer on the basis of his/her hearing, that’s an express case for the EEO Commission, not the FCC.

By: edsalert

edsalert — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:52:23 +0000

Live Free or Die,

Best way to do that is go to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro and then click on “disability related”. Be warned it is like maze there, though.

By: no name here, sorry!

no name here, sorry! — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:49:42 +0000

Yes! That is so relieved to acknowledge that not only us, but those hearing people who care enough about the misinterpreted ruling! Whew! Thanks for sharing this with us.