26 03 2010
Folks,
Tom Chandler who has worked in the FCC 7 1/2 years as Chief of Disability Rights Office (DRO) wrote his farewell letter. Today – March 26, 2010 is his last day with FCC.
For those who may raise eyebrow on what the heck DRO is. DRO is the responsible department for overseeing relay services which includes VRS. Tom is the Chief of that department.
Farewell Letter from Tom Chandler
Tom and I have mutual respect for each other even though we often disagree on various issues. This letter is no different; there are a few things I disagree, but it is his wish to share the letter with the world. So here it is.
I will not do any quotable quotes as the letter is pretty much self-explanatory.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Wasn’t he the one who pushed for the 11% profit margin rule? I am not sure if VRS are still required to cap the profit at 11% now but I believe it was required before.
Ed,
Just wondering if you could give me some clarification..”.the recent announcement affecting the oversight of DRO and these issues after I leave appears to reflect, in my view, a repudiation of much of the reform I have been advocating for the past several years”…What annoucement does he have reference to? Who is now overseeing DRO?….”It is always disconcerting when a regulatory agency puts industry and consumer advocates in charge of the same regulatory programs they have long lobbied and will likely lobby again in the future.”…What industry and consumer advocates are “in charge” of regulatory programs?
One more thing…Overcompensation of VRS providers!… Any facts on this issue you are aware of??
Thanks for posting Mr. Chandler’s farwell letter which reminds me much of President Dwight Einsehowser’s farwell address about the warnings of military-industrial complex.
RLM
The profit cap referred to Wiggums is not stated correctly, if I’m not mistaken. Actually, the rate allows a 11.25% profit margin, if I understand it correctly. So, 88.75% of the per min rate is supposed to cover the actual costs, giving the provider some profit (the 11.25% portion of the rate).
But I understand that some providers have received subpoenas asking for documentation and more information on how they determine the costs and how they’re reported to the NECA. The information collected by NECA helps them decide the per minute rate. I guess they’re looking into whether the providers intentionally inflated the reported costs to get more $.
So, back to the point… very good letter by Tom and he says it as he sees it, pulling no punches. I wonder if KPS will recuse herself from any decisions involving CSDVRS, especially anything in regards to the Clear Blue program?
And, he’s absolutely right that the NAD, TDI and the other consumer groups have been expending too much of their resources on helping out VRS providers. What happened to the support over Deaf Blind relay? No one cared about that, unfortunately.. and we’re focusing too much of our resources on trying to make things functionally equivalent while neglecting the fact that the DBs have no access at all.
Wiggums,
That 11% has a history that I will have to explain later. It involves NECA, FCC, state regulatory agencies, and TRS providers.
Confused,
Tom is explaining his frustration in getting his ideas across to the decision makers which involves FCC Commissioners, FCC staff who are involved in the decision making procedures, deaf/hoh national leaders, and relay providers.
As for who is in “charge”? That is a loaded and highly political question. There already have been a few deaf relay pundits such as Sonny Sonnesthral who have openly expressed his thoughts and in his letter indicated “who is in charge”. However, I am now seeing a few congress people starting to write bills for TRS/VRS, so maybe down the road it will be the lobbyists who will be in “charge”? Hopefully the lobbyists from deaf/hoh communities will convince congress people to go the right way. I understand TDI, NAD, and a few other national organizations are working with congress people.
As for overcompensation of VRS providers. Remember ultimately it is the FCC who made the VRS rates, so presumably the VRS rates are reasonable and was calculated by NECA with directives from FCC otherwise FCC would not have approved it first place. Tom is just one person who disagreed with the VRS rates; apparently rest of the FCC did not – at least the decision makers did not.
eyes open & thumbs up..
Ed-
Any commentary about the latest flurry of FCC filings in docket 10-51? (i.e., from ZVRS, Consumer Groups, and Sorenson.) I found it interesting that Sorenson would petition the FCC against the retroactive application of the Bureau’s Feb. 25, 2010 Declaratory Ruling.
Vinny,
Keep in mind that Sorenson also says they still support retroactive application of the prohibition against calls not involving a hearing person and calls designed to ratchet up minutes…which is why I would bet Purple’s people aren’t too happy with that petition.
Tom needs to spend a month running a video relay company. He will eat his words. It is a very expensive thing to do. (I’m not talking about fraud calls.) You have to be competitive to attract quality interpreters from the community. And if you don’t have any fraud in your center, it is expensive to pay them to interpret actual calls from real people who just want to call each other. And then there are all the other costs. I do believe that it’s worth every penny. I just don’t believe it’s cheap. The rate has been cut to almost a third of the original rate. That’s fleecing America? I’d like to cut his salary in half or a third and then accuse him of fleecing me. It doesn’t make sense.
Cousin Vinny,
I have not had a chance to review all of them yet. Plan to and may post them as well.
TerpGirl – many people who are involved in VRS industry echo similar sentiments. However, truth be told frauds/scams did hurt VRS industry, so FCC really needs to find a balanced policy that does not hamper competition yet make reimbursable rates reasonable.
eyes open & thumbs up…