New VRS Rates & Comments From VRS Providers
6 05 2010
Folks,
As usual here is the disclaimer: I own Edsalert and also a co-founder of Convo so take the post for what it is.
If you don’t recognize me; my apologies. It was an accident. I usually give haircut by using 1/4" clip on a hair buzzer. As I was cutting my hair and then unbeknownst to me dropped clip into wastebasket as I shed hair into wastebasket. I then buzzed my hair with no clip. Sooo I had no choice but to give myself full cut. So here is my new look. Hope you like the new look.
Finally here are the new proposed VRS rates and comments from VRS Providers. Wearing both caps (I don’t use hat 
of past regulatory work and current VRS industry, I would consider this not very good news. I will also include other VRS providers and their comments to the FCC.
"IP Relay providers to continue to file with the Fund administrator annual costs and demand data, as they had in the past.4 The Commission stated that “this information, which includes actual costs for prior years, will be helpful in reviewing the compensation rates … [adopted] and whether they reasonably correlate with projected costs and prior actual costs.”5 Based on the data received from providers, the Fund administrator indicates that VRS providers’ weighted average actual per-minute costs were $4.4603 in 2006, $3.9604 in 2007, $4.1180 in 2008, and $4.1596 in 2009."
"The Bureau also particularly seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt 2010-2011 interim Fund Year rates based on NECA’s proposed use of weighted averages in calculating each of the tiers, as described in the 2010 TRS Rate Filing."
"This calculation results in rates of $5.7754 for Tier I, $6.0318 for Tier II, and $3.8963 for Tier III."
See the difference between Tier 1, and Tier 2 then down to Tier 3 – hmmm – something is wrong there.
NECA Submission
Above FCC Public Notice is based on NECA’s submission. Read this carefully..
ZVRS had few intriguing comments; the following is one of them.
Sorenson was not shy about its thoughts about reduced rates. Read on..
"The FCC should not adopt either of NECA’s proposals for basing rates on providers’ historical costs. Both of these proposals would result in bankruptcy, chaos, and devastation for the deaf. One of these proposals prescribes rates so low that they would immediately drive all VRS providers out of business, forcing deaf consumers to revert to the laborious process of typing their relayed communications, and both of the historic-cost proposals would drive Sorenson out of business, stranding tens of thousands of deaf consumers and making it uneconomic for them to be served by any other provider. The Commission lacks authority under the ADA to adopt any VRS rate that would wreak such devastation."
More to come…
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Long Link: FCC PN http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/DA-10-761A1-2.doc
NECA: hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-761A1.pdf
ZVRS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020390383
Sorenson: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020445878
[...] Vlog. he s co-founder of CONVO. Ed’s Telecom Alert New VRS Rates & Comments From VRS Providers [...]
Here is the problem with all of this. Shouldn’t the free market determine which VRS earns more money. Why should the government squelch any goals for success. Now we are to aim high, but not too high? Really? Since when has mediocrity been the goal?
The FCC should, if they can’t continue to pay the rates they have been, lower the amount they pay per call for ALL VRS providers. Why not pay $5.50/per call, regardless of how many calls the providers processes.
Spreading the wealth, which is what this proposal will do…taking from the successful to reward those who are less successful, will not only hurt those on top, but the amount of jobs that will be lost is amazing. AND what a huge step BACKWARD it would be for the Deaf community.
It doesn’t matter which VRS provider you use, you will be effected eventually. If tier III companies go bankrupt, the other VRS providers will necessarily have to pick up the slack, which in return would move them up a tier, which would then cause more bankruptcy, and so forth.
Longer waits, lower video quality, less qualified interpreters, etc. OR worse…back to the TTY’s. How debilitating! How discriminatory!!
Make a stand, Deaf community! YOU can make a difference! YOU need to be heard!!
You still look good with the haircut! We can’t go back to tty! Thanks for the information!
ha ha ha, I cut my own hair, too…that hasn’t happened to me yet! That’s a good sign that Convo founder still cuts his own hair. All the $ for further developing Convo.
Stef–Agreed! This is why Sorenson recommended to the FCC that one flat rate be paid to all VRS companies, regardless of minutes generated. I agree that this would level the playing ground.
It is premature of a company to scream “Bankruptcy” if not immature. Being in the corporate world, all I see is a typical strategy for getting people all hyped up for getting the support so the company can preserve the MOST wealth for their investors. Yes, I believe that every investors should profit from any business but to put fear in their own customers? I am not sure how to feel about that.
There are two common forms of bankruptcy. One is to shut the door (not good) and the other is to restructure (Good thing). Which one are they talking about?
Can this company “PROMISE” us consumers that they will bankrupt if the proposed rates get approved? It is all speculation and assumptions.
What is the motive for cutting dramatically on FCC’s part? To punish the industry’s giant? I doubt it. FCC is reaching the limit on the budget? Possible. To encourage small enterprises to bloom? Very likely.
Also, why would the quality of the video lessen? If you use Skype or OOVOO, it is a nice video transmission.
Longer call wait time? Again, another speculation.
Let’s assume that the VRS giant folds, the interpreters are going to start working for other VRS companies. Can they handle the slack? I am sure that they are preparing RIGHT NOW for that possibilities.
Also, if the future VRS companies get too many minutes then they will be ok. Why? They are prepared to expect that so they are going to figured that number in their budget. again, that is business planning.
My opinion…. it is all a hype to save one company. People forgot that there are at least a dozen other companies who aren’t screaming “BANKRUPTCY”. Makes you wonder why.
I remember when VRS companies were getting $15 a minute with 3 VRS companies and when the cut was made, everyone freaked out. Well, we still have VRS services on $6 a minute and a lot more companies plus better technologies, a whole lot more interpreters, a wide spectrum of Video phones. Maybe that is a good thing to have a cut, to encourage more enterprises to join. Who knows?
Also, we’ll never go back to the TTY. Trust me, there will be a million deaf people and supporter on the National Lawn in Washington DC if we lose VRS. This will be bigger than DPN and DPN 2 combined because it will hit all of us at home. FCC doesn’t want that kind of headache.
Maybe we are too dependent to the VRS giant? FCC’s intention is to break it down to smaller companies so FCC can have better control? For all I know that it is all politics.
If a company fold, then there got to be some other issues that we don’t see. It might be all smokes and mirrors.
Ed-
it sounds like you accidentially sheared off one side of your head when the 1/4 clip fell off. Why didn’t you compensate by doing the other side of your head and go for a mohawk look?
Thank you for all the work you do, notifying the public about the FCC and the VRS industry. I realize you do have personal business and financial interests in your ConvoRelay venture, but still, thank you.
I have already submitted my comment to docket 03-123. I should note that the deadline for comments is May 14th. Perusing docket 03-123, DA 10-761 NPRM certainly has generated a lot of buzz! (720+ comments and counting!) I did notice that a lot of VRS employees have commented. I suspect that the FCC would also like to hear from VRS consumers, and let’s hope they do so in great numbers.
BTW, loved the ConvoRelay video discussing DA 10-761. Very creative! Really hits the point home.
Now, onto the actual substance of DA 10-761 NPRM; the proposed tiered rate structure will certainly hurt the 800 lb VRS gorilla. Puts to death those silly rumors floating in the Deaf community that this gorilla was also the influencing voice in the FCC (i.e., DA 10-314) in protecting the integrity of the TRS Fund.
Right now, I’m not sure if I can fully support the proposed tiered rate structure for 2010-2011 fiscal year. This is because the whole rate-setting process between NECA and the VRS industry has not been transparent. There were ‘outliers’ that showed the absurdity of the rate-setting process. Relay minutes consumed at each VRS provider remains confidential business data, for competitive purposes.
So, I don’t know if the proposed tiered rate structure will help or harm the VRS industry for 2010-2011 fiscal year. I suspect it will hurt the 800 lb. gorilla very severely, but smaller VRS providers should be okay? How will smaller VRS providers be impacted severely, as the proposed per minute rate has not dropped that much from the 3-year tiered rate?
Also, I hate to say this, but I predicted this. I predicted months ago that the FCC will adopt a tiered rate structure which will be similar or a little bit lower to the current 3-year tiered rate, despite the financial impact of DA 10-314. Turns out I was way off on the last tiered rate.
At any rate, in my comment, I have registered my opposition to FCC’s NPRM for a single-year tiered rate structure based on 2009 historical cost data as submitted by the VRS industry. I guess we’ll find out what the FCC will plan to do next.
Regardless of whatever FCC is planning, there are always business opportunities that are closing and opening. Be swift and nimble; VRS companies may seize VRS business at the expense of others.
Another quick question;
Answer’s probably in there somewhere, though. In using historical costs of 2009 for the purpose of determining proposed rates for 2010, did NECA factor in the additional expenses that would be (or already are) incurred by the Feb. 25th Declaratory Ruling?
The Feb. 25th ruling is too ‘new’ for the purposes of including its impact for 2009 historical costs for determining VRS rates, making them suspect in the first place.
Cousin Vinny on second comment,
That is astute observation! Exactly! VRS employees making VRI calls at the expense of its VRS provider most certainly have not factored into the proposed rates.
eyes open & thumbs up
Ed, I trust your honesty and believe you about your concern with the proposed rates. But until VRS providers are willing to make their operating costs public, I don’t feel relay users are qualified to comment on the rates. For now, the relay users’ focus should be on the quality of the relay services, functionaly equivalency, and having choices. I’ve been annoyed at FCC’s refusal to share information about the different provider’s breakdown of and totals of operating costs. I’ve also been annoyed with certain providers claiming that it’s proprietary (private) information not to be shared with the public. I know of two of at least two VRS providers that are willing to open up their books for evaluation only if all the others do likewise. So until the public has access to information to evaluate whether proposed rates are fair, I feel that relay users are not qualified to comment on rates,but only on service and whether the service is functonally equivalent to the services that hearing people have. Until then, I feel that this issue about the fairness of the proposed rates has to be between the VRS providers and FCC.
Man I enjoy all the ketchup! But wheres the mustard?
Long ago there was a blog about VRS employees using personal VRI calls is considered as a business expense. (I strongly agreed)
Cleaning out all them artificial minutes created by the VRServices from tier 1, gives them so much mayonnaise. Look at it this way with actual minutes are just a hair above 4 bucks in 2009, including a few more dollars to help with growth. Why is everyone complain?
I hear the Britney Spears song coming to play $$ “Gimme Gimme More” $$ (lookin at it from a business perspective)
The costs that the NECA/FCC is collecting and analyzing are only a fraction of what is actually being spent for the all the services for VRS. The cost of a 24×7 network, infrastructure and support personnel is not covered in the costs reported to NECA. To support the user base that now exists is millions for this level of service. This is not as mature as it needs to be and is still under development which means that we should be supporting more money to beef it up. All VRS providers are facing this problem.
There are other costs not collected as well like HR, Accounting, IT, workforce management and other administrative costs. The government needs economy of scale to drive all the costs down in the VRS industry to keep the public happy. The bigger the VRS providers are the more they can provide lower costs. This means we should be giving a high enough rate across all tiers to maintain this momentum. Yes, there needs to be profit gained from reducing overhead costs, otherwise companies will not be motivated to reduce costs. My recommendation is to keep the rates for operating the VRS service the same as they currently are in tier III. The other rates need to be raised to encourage competition and to cover increasing infrastructure and administrative costs as sapling VRS companies try to grow.
The bottom line is the NECA/FCC management in the past didn’t and doesn’t understand the VRS business well enough to collect all the costs involved. This has led to a bogus estimate of how much it actually costs to run the VRS business. Unfortunately, this blunder under the past administration is leaving this administration in a he said she said way to set the rate. This has led them into a critical point in time where the recommended rates will destroy the very service they have successfully built. I have no confidence at all in the cost numbers collected by NECA. From what I know, making the current rate decision will do exactly what Ed is reporting above.
Another problem with the rate, Development/QA are not part of the equation either. All providers invent and develop deaf accommodation technologies on their own dime. This operation takes experts who are breaking new ground on video communications transmission. The communication require more innovation than casual video used by hearing people. The FCC should be contributing to this expensive venture. Its in everyone’s best interest to get more Deaf working. Because of this I would suggest both increasing the current VRS rate for all levels to leverage the already existing brains working on technology. I would propose 50 cents per VRS minute across all tiers and ear mark it to development costs.
The costs of point to point support infrastructure or maintenance personnel is not covered at all in the NECA costs. Sorenson and other providers maintain this out of their own pockets. This is essential for VRS to have but is not included in the costs submitted. It costs millions to support it on the scale where all Deaf Americans can us their VPs and other video communication methods. Because these costs are not included Deaf support teams who support point to point activity will be the first to go, they are a flat cost that is not being included. Some providers have already made cut to their Deaf support staffs. If the rates go as proposed this will happen to everyone in the industry. When Sorenson says that the rates are below their costs these are a part of the costs they are talking about.
We need more innovation for employment accommodations. There are many good jobs that could done by Deaf with videophones and VRS. For new innovation, I would propose a new grant based fund of 50 million over the next 5 years for improving this areas and accommodations for employment.
We have an opportunity until 5/14/2010 to unite and press our points to the FCC. Constant drops in the rate will eventually lead to no innovation and lower quality services or no services at all. Are we completely satisfied with what we have now? why accept a cut anywhere?
Just reading up on what the trs administrator submitted, seems that 1 tier III vrs carrier was late on it submittal and also had some numbers that the trs administrator deemed unreasonably high. Anyone else read about that? Looks like that had a lot to do with the proposed Tier III rate.
Here’s my question to everyone: If we are so concerned about cost and the vrs losing money, possibly going bankrupt, why are we screaming for the Government to bail us out? Wont that make us look just as bad as the bank/investment industry and the automobile industry? They screamed for a bailout. This pissed off the american consumer/public because it was just money going to pay people who screwed up, fill thier pockets with more money while the man way low down on the totem pole got screwed over. Sure, we could have deaf employees get fired, but that doenst mean the management/ hearing ones will be lost. No, they will still continue to profit. Its a scare tactict in my opinion by sorenson and other big companies. We want change- lets do as someone said and ask for all the vrs companies to make public how they profit/operate for the next 5 years. Either that or maybe its time we start paying a little for this service the way Hearing people pay not just for their cellphones but their landlines- something like $10 a month. Its just a thought that had to be brought up because sooner or later we will be asked to pay and if we start paying now with a lower price, then we can definately not be caught off guard with a higher price later down the road. Just a thought.
I’m guessing a lot of folks has forgotten the TRUE purpose of VRS/TRS?
Stated here in ASL:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/vrs_policies.html
Also here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296497A1.pdf
“The Telecommunications Relay Service Fund was established to support exactly that kind of communication. But the Fund can’t be used to support practices that are designed only to increase payments to VRS providers, rather than providing a necessary service for people who need it. We’re taking a strong first step today to stop these practices and ensure that the Fund is always used to benefit the deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers it was designed to help.”
And here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-314A1.pdf
JRR,
I am glad you brought this up. As a veteran of TRS regulation, the best as I understand it, this is what happened.
When TRS regulation was first started, Congressmen who wrote the Title IV had intended for ALL established telephone companies (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc) to provide relay service at cost in each states. Title IV also offered options that states can take up the responsibility to provide TRS. All states did that (Calif later on chose multiple vendor, but still not all telephone companies provided TRS) by releasing RFP. What was interesting a few states did not have RFP, so Telephone Association of that state released RFP because they do not want ALL telephone companies provide TRS in that state as the Title IV requires; Association chose the other option. That was an opportunity for telephone companies to submit their proposal and get some margin of profit.
Anyway, over the years, Internet-based relay services came out which at the time indicated different regulation for Internet services; i.e. profits are allowed – competition thrived as FCC tweaked its regulation to the point where it will make it possible for any companies, or for that matter anyone to establish Internet services. That happened, so the pendulum swung from one extreme to the other extreme. Thus the mess we’re in.
What i am seeing is VRS industry is growing with pains. It is the pains that will help guide us to the balanced rates – eventually. Competition is healthy and good, but needs balanced regulation to do that. We will get there.
eyes open & thumbs up..
JDM,
I don’t see VRS companies screaming for a bail out. VRS companies are not in massive debt and ready to go under. However, if the FCC changes its rates, then that is when the problems will start. It will be FCC induced. THere is a difference between bad management of funds and having the rug pulled out from under your feet.
I have been reading YouTube vlogs, blogs, and Facebook logs about the FCC Rate issue. I noticed that a small number of people commented that Sorenson is the only one VRS Provider causing the frenzy in the deaf communities about the “FCC Rate Cut” and that the small VRS companies are not saying anything at all. They were saying that there is something wrong with this picture.
Well, may I point out here that Convo as a small VRS Provider company also shows the video about “FCC Rate Cut” on its website. I like that video with good sense of humor. It just goes to show that Sorenson and Convo with serious thought and grave decision in a time of crisis are aware of the VRS industries’ fragile status and deaf/HoH people’s freedom of communications being imposed constantly by NECA/FCC.
I am beginning to wonder why Purple or ZVRS or SnapVRS companies did not make any effects to show their support for the stay of the same current FCC rates on their websites lately. ZVRS did made the comment about “5 Tiers”, but that was three months ago. Perhaps they wish to stay on sideline as observers for the moment.
In the year 2050, deaf history will display that Sorenson and Convo made the bold movement for the deaf/HoH people’ communication right in the spring of 2010.
Right now, I said to FCC: “Give us amazing VRS relay or give us dull TTY relay”.
By the way, Ed, I had similar experience with buzzer few yrs ago. My wife did not like my hair, and she had to wait for my hair to grow back
Larry,
I believe SnapVRS and Convo have gone on the record that transparency is good and that these companies will do so ONLY if all other VRS providers agree to it.
eyes open & thumbs up..
The idea that this a bailout is missing the point. To keep the service alive and well isn’t requiring taking over someone’s debt. It simply is that the current rate that is compensating the tier III providers now and does not need to be changed. The tier I and II rates should be re-evaluated on how well they are supporting the costs of the smaller providers. From what Convo who is a new comer in the industry is saying they need help by not reducing the rate at their tier. There was very short notice for comments (must be in by 5/14/2010) on this rate change which is why companies are just getting there points out there now for consideration. Hopefully, it isn’t to late to make a difference.
I have seen some interesting technology coming from Convo of late. This type of innovation is what the VRS industry still needs to better the VRS access for Deaf people. Cutting the rates further which is this proposal, will stifle this type of innovation. Some technology takes several years to completely develop as with the VP-200. If you make a yearly rate debate like we are having now, it will make investment in more complicated back end systems and technology extremely risky and difficult. Multi-year rates allow for investment in developers and engineers who can build out the infrastructures needed to support the big innovations.
I think most people will enjoy going back to a text based systems for communication again, the FCC is actually proposing a raise in the IP Relay rates to help encourage more development so everyone will go back. I hear TTY systems are going to be in high demand in the future.
Take a stand!
Ironically the VRS providers will continue to drive this “scare” tactic to everyone that will pay attention. Again, how about all those high paid executives and so called “experts” are going to actually take some pay cuts and do something benefitial for the deaf community. I think they are screaming at the rate cut because they will have to restructure their work force, and perhaps not be able to take their boats out as much. Although I do understnad that they $8/hr employee does not get to take out their boats either. Just like politicians, these executives are nothing but hypocrites. It is time that we stop feeling sorry for ourselves and actually get off from the blanket of being handicap. Cut the rates and force them to actually develop communications mediums that will put all of us deaf and HOH at the same competency level as everyone else. Nope they will continue to drive their scare tactics while they keep on lining their pockets and fattening their bank accounts. Ed I like your statements, however, I think one of the reasons we are always whinning is because all these so self proclaimed deaf watchdogs. I have no respect for any of them.
Ed,
For years, Purple (and its precedessor, HOVRS) have endorsed making data transparent. In numerous filings, Purple has urged the FCC to make those data transparent. For years, they stood alone as the only provider with this stance.
As a former member of the TRS Advisory Council, you were fully aware of Purple’s position. Failing to mention Purple here must have been an oversight on your part? I noted that you posted your comment at dawn this morning–perhaps you haven’t had your second cup of coffee then?
In any case, it’s good to know that Snap and Convo has taken a similar position.
Maybe we are getting too greedy? We should appreciate what we have. We are not entitled to anything unless we are given that right. Freedom isn’t free. We pay for them. Our rights are not free. We paid for them. I saw VRS Fee on my cable bill. You should check yours out. It sure surprised me.
Why aren’t the other companies saying anything? Maybe they learned from the past.
SnapVRS almost lost the company at one time with their financial problems with Worldgate at one time. They learned from it and prevailed. They were brave enough to add on a corrupted company, Viable. Was that a good decision? We’ll find out.
CSDVRS almost lost then they were struggling as non-profit organization. Sean came in and redirected the company back into the picture and strong.
Purple almost lost too with the FCC but agreed to pay back the money. Who knows what will happen the end.
Small companies are resilient somehow. Why not the giant company?
Maybe some companies are just “Too expensive” to operate”?
No one knows each others’ finances so how can we argue what is reasonable rate to serve VRS?
Purple,
I stand corrected. I have this excuse that I am not youngster and do not remember everything. ;-]
So there were three providers who supported transparency.
eyes open & thumbs up…
Tough news on the hair cut. I had one like that a couple of weeks ago. I had to go with it too. Many people said I looked younger. You look good with the shorter cut.
The Sorenson company has many interpreter call centers across the US. This is not so easy to create for other providers in a short amount of time. This means that if the 800 lb gorilla goes down, that all the work over 7 years of building the centers and interpreter workplaces would have to repeat with someone else taking years. In the mean time, there would be extreme shortages of interpreters and many could loose their jobs and be out of work.
Smaller providers must grow over time so they can build their infrastructure and buildings to support more of the VRS business. Cutting rates to $3.89 abruptly on July 1, 2010 would cause a domino affect that would happen over the next several months. In the mean time, call queues and hold times would be extremely hard to manage making everyone wait a long time for service. Smaller VRS providers only have so much extra capacity to offer without getting more centers built and would get quickly over run. Having too high of volume of calls can hurt companies because they can’t make the FCC speed of answer requirements and could loose an entire month’s revenue. This scenario would happen with just a percentage of calls moving away from Sorenson. Dropping the entire service Sorenson does, would stop the VRS service all together in a extremely long backlog of calls waiting and this would continue until other providers built the call centers and hired interpreters and etc. It would be melted down for many months. The FCC would have to wave the speed of answer or no one would get paid or deaf would have to ration the service. Sorenson would go down fighting but eventually at $3.89 per minute would be dragged down into bankruptcy.
A small thing like the rate can have such an impact. The current rate of $6.24 per minute supplies the services for Sorenson and others who get to tier III. I would concede to non-Sorenson providers to determine what the other tiers should be to meet their needs. Time is running out for saving VRS for everyone. Post a comment.
Maybe that is the core problem we have right now. We are way too dependent on Sorenson being that they have approximately 80% of the market share.
What happens “IF” Sorenson bankrupt on its OWN with this current rate? I am not talking about the $3.89 rate but with the $6.24 rate. Let’s say, it happens tomorrow and it had nothing to do with the rate being cut.
What does this mean?
Let’s repeat what CfromSoreonson said……
Dropping the entire service Sorenson does, would stop the VRS service all together in a extremely long backlog of calls waiting and this would continue until other providers built the call centers and hired interpreters and etc. It would be melted down for many months. The FCC would have to wave the speed of answer or no one would get paid or deaf would have to ration the service.
Wow! Does that sounds dangerous for the VRS consumers to depend on the fate of one big company?
To protect the integrity of “functional equivalency”, no company should be so big that if anything would happen to company. We should have not go back to the stone age for several month. Hearing people don’t have to.
For a hearing person,
if AT&T folds then the consumer can switch over to another provider such as Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile and so on and see almost no changes in the services.
For a deaf person,
If Sorenson folds, then the consumers switch over to another provider and may feel the hit of long wait time.
Is that equal?
I don’t support closing out any businesses, including Sorenson. We need them all! We just can’t depend on just one big company. It is too dangerous for the VRS consumers if something would happen to this one big company. We need a safety basket somewhere.
Hello All:
Hard to say how the changes will affect Sorenson. Regardless, do many people know that Sorenson was just infused with $735 million by selling bonds to pay dividends and perhaps principal back to their investors. The new bonds are promising 11% return a year for 5 years.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1115548520100114
“Vanguard is not the first company to issue junk bonds to pay a dividend. Sorenson Communications priced a $735 million bond offering Jan. 14 to pay a dividend to private equity firm owners Madison Dearborn Capital Partners and GTCR.”
from
http://www.leveragedfinancenews.com/news/vanguard_shift_50m_from_bond_loan_deal-202052-1.html
Pat
Lawrence Brick?
Excuse me, aren’t you on the advisory for NECA alongside with your son? Coupled with the fact Kelby Brick is working for Purple3? Wouldn’t that amount to massive amount of conflict of interest as well as insider information? Any of this true.
I believe that Soreonson owes the FCC a public apology for causing a panic, confusion, fear and making false statement to the general public. Sorenson’s comments are pure speculation.
All the comments sent to FCC that is due this Friday should be thrown out entirely. The submitted comments have been compromised because they were sent based on fear of losing VRS. It is a waste of FCC’s time to read the comments when they are based on false statement from Sorenson’s.
So start an landslide and create the problem now? Eat a poison pill for the VRS industry now? Punishing Sorenson is not the way to get more parity in the VRS industry. The FCC should encourage other VRS providers to expand their businesses legally by continuing to fund outreach to find new VRS users. They also should be working on funding ways for those who have no access to VRS. Finding ways to help to fund the thousands who don’t have access to the internet in their homes. This creates opportunities for any VRS provider to be successful. I remember when Sorenson was number three on the list of VRS providers, not so long ago behind HOVRS and CSD. What did they do? Created a VP-100 then a VP-200 and did outreach to give every deaf person who wanted one an videophone. This was the program funded by the TRS fund and it was available to every provider and still is. Well… unless we decide that we don’t appreciate what accomplishments that was and let our funding go away for the whole VRS industry.
Most VRS providers want to reach out to new VRS users that I watch. The rates should be unchanged or increased from what they are now for Tier I and II this will help with more parity. Compensating outreach as part of the rate will promote the very activity that Sorenson did to get where they are today for others providers as well. I have seen many competent people in the VRS Industry who can build the businesses up through hard work. Convo just did a campaign to reach out that was note worthy. Many providers are creating new ways to access VRS which on the right track.
We need to quit trying to punish VRS providers for doing well and helping the deaf community. Instead, let’s have all providers get together and promote getting all the money in the VRS related programs to improve the services for all Deaf. We are all on the same team trying to help the community. We should be arguing for money through the rates across the board in all tiers. There is still so much work to do in getting the VRS and deaf to deaf videophone services to everyone who needs them.
clarification on Brick
It should reads “Any of this true?”
Sorenson Response to FCC Statement of May 10, 2010
The FCC’s Bureau of Consumer and Governmental Affairs recently issued a statement stating that the FCC supports VRS and that VRS is not threatened by the FCC’s Public Notice proposing rates for VRS. This statement from the FCC has also appeared on numerous websites.
Sorenson Communications is not at all surprised to hear that the FCC supports the mandate in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications for the deaf. But the FCC fails to mention that in addition to “functional equivalent telecommunications for the deaf,” the ADA also requires nationwide access and improvements in technology and efficiency. The FCC is completely incorrect to say that VRS as we know it today is not threatened by its April 30 VRS rate proposal.
Sorenson provides the vast majority of VRS to the deaf community. Sorenson has provided VRS access to more deaf individuals than any other provider and continues to be the frontrunner in providing access and support to deaf individuals who have never before used VRS service. Sorenson developed the first deaf-centric videophone offering the most functionally- equivalent communication service available. And Sorenson has done all of this efficiently, as we continue to develop next generation solutions that the deaf community has been greatly anticipating.
The rates that the FCC is endorsing will drive Sorenson, the leading provider of VRS, into bankruptcy. The FCC’s proposed compensation to Sorenson is $3.89 per minute. Sorenson’s true and audited costs are over $5 per minute. The FCC is incorrect in their assessment of what would happen if its proposal were adopted. Sorenson understands completely the impact the proposed rate would have on its business. It would be disastrous for consumers. If Sorenson is unable to sustain their business at $3.89 per minute, how can the FCC suggest that any other provider would be able to service Sorenson’s users at such a low rate?
Sorenson continues to strongly urge everyone who relies on VRS to communicate to tell the FCC the facts: The FCC’s proposed rate will force Sorenson into bankruptcy and will end VRS as we know it today. The FCC Chairman and Commissioners must be made to understand that any rate proposal that resembles the April 30 Public Notice, will be a death blow to VRS and to the ADA’s mandate to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications service, national access, technology improvements and efficiency for deaf telecommunication.
Michael D. Maddix
Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs
Sorenson Communications, Inc.
DeafWarrior– Sorenson’s top administrators make LESS than Purple, ZVRS, and CSDVRS’s top administrators. Think about what you’re saying. Pointing fingers at Sorenson’s administrators is not fair. They already are paid less than others at the same level.
The FCC’s Bureau of Consumer and Governmental Affairs recently issued a statement stating that the FCC supports VRS and that VRS is not threatened by the FCC’s Public Notice proposing rates for VRS. This statement from the FCC has also appeared on numerous websites.
Sorenson Communications is not at all surprised to hear that the FCC supports the mandate in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications for the deaf. But the FCC fails to mention that in addition to “functional equivalent telecommunications for the deaf,” the ADA also requires nationwide access and improvements in technology and efficiency. The FCC is completely incorrect to say that VRS as we know it today is not threatened by its April 30 VRS rate proposal.
Sorenson provides the vast majority of VRS to the deaf community. Sorenson has provided VRS access to more deaf individuals than any other provider and continues to be the frontrunner in providing access and support to deaf individuals who have never before used VRS service. Sorenson developed the first deaf-centric videophone offering the most functionally- equivalent communication service available. And Sorenson has done all of this efficiently, as we continue to develop next generation solutions that the deaf community has been greatly anticipating.
The rates that the FCC is endorsing will drive Sorenson, the leading provider of VRS, into bankruptcy. The FCC’s proposed compensation to Sorenson is $3.89 per minute. Sorenson’s true and audited costs are over $5 per minute. The FCC is incorrect in their assessment of what would happen if its proposal were adopted. Sorenson understands completely the impact the proposed rate would have on its business. It would be disastrous for consumers. If Sorenson is unable to sustain their business at $3.89 per minute, how can the FCC suggest that any other provider would be able to service Sorenson’s users at such a low rate?
Sorenson continues to strongly urge everyone who relies on VRS to communicate to tell the FCC the facts: The FCC’s proposed rate will force Sorenson into bankruptcy and will end VRS as we know it today. The FCC Chairman and Commissioners must be made to understand that any rate proposal that resembles the April 30 Public Notice, will be a death blow to VRS and to the ADA’s mandate to provide functionally equivalent telecommunications service, national access, technology improvements and efficiency for deaf telecommunication.
Michael D. Maddix
Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs
Sorenson Communications, Inc.
To the anonymous poster, what I wrote I wrote in general terms, I never stated anything about Sorenson. I do not use them as I do like to watch my tv without being interrupted to get a call. However, since you pointed that I must ask, how do you know? Some insiders knowledge. The ahole point is that people can state whatever they want. It is time to put an end to the hold any provider would be able to put on the market. The facts are simple, there is nothing out there as far as equipment that can not be accomplished with a simple $300 laptop. Witht he advances in technology, most of these providers are just sucking the lives out of us. Again, I choose to be productive and I always find ways to communicate effectively, I refuse to be one of those “victims”. My hearing shortcommings are no ones faults and so I do not lay blame. Get a life and stop creating fear.
Hey Ed, your buzzer is becoming your motto! Please don’t think I am questioning your credibility. You presented all the facts during your last few vlogs and then you mentioned the ZVRS’ recommendation of a new 5-tier system. I had to say something that there is something wrong with this picture.
Some VRS Providers are telling FCC on that NECA’s rates are too low or how to create a rate system in which I question their credibility. One VRS provider does not speak for the entire VRS industry.
The new rate imposed on Sorenson means $233.40 per hour based on the multiplication of $3.89 per minute times 60 minutes. I can’t answer if that is too low for a one-hour call.
Recently, FCC released their comments indicating that the new tiered rates would not lead any VRS providers to go broke.
Another question has arisen from your presentation of facts and the question is does NECA really understand the VRS industry like they do understand the telephone industry?
I don’t know who is telling the truth. I can’t understand why can’t FCC hire an independent expert to study economic feasibility study of VRS rates and provide a report to verify what NECA did right and wrong.
C.
I’m sorry, but to the person who said that we survived the very deep budget cuts (from about 10 to about six per hour) in 2003 does not realize that we did not survive them very well. Those budget cuts did not come out of anybody else’s body except the front line interpreters. We used to have rotational rest breaks and it used to be very safe to work in the call centers. I was there. I worked at CSD at the time. One day after the budget cuts, literally the very next day, it was call after call after call after call after call after call after call after call after call after call. You couldn’t take a break. Who would answer the phone? They could no longer afford to put enough interpreters on per shift to make it safe for the interpreters who remained, the very FEW interpreters. Now, ever since 2003, any video relay company who wants to make a profit (and you need a profit to stay in business, which is why Sorenson is saying what it is – - why would they run a company without profits? It makes no sense! But that’s a separate point) has to overwork their interpreters in order to stay afloat. That means that breaks are fewer and more far between than ever before, and brief. That’s the only way to make money in this game. It was not that way originally. I’m not saying that we need $10.00 per hour in order to create a safe call center, but we certainly need more than we have now, not less. It needs to be put into the front line. After all, that’s what the service is – - interpreters interpreting the phone calls. Injure them, and you have a repeat of the 1980s, which were not good. There’s no point in killing the army, and that is what the FCC has been asking us to do since 2003. We don’t want to face it, but those of us who work in call centers know the truth. It’s more interpreting than the human body was designed to take. Interpreting is different from signing for conversation, so I don’t expect anyone to fully understand who has not done it, so I guess you’ll have to trust me. If you don’t do call after call with the most minimal and occasional breaks, you’re not getting anywhere. The other result of budget cuts is that it paralyzes the providers’ opportunity to hire and retain quality interpreters. Who wants to call in and get a beginning interpreter who doesn’t know very much yet and has very limited experience? Nobody! Sure, there are some interpreters that you match with better than others, but there shouldn’t be anybody in the call centers who isn’t skilled yet. It takes a lot to be able to do this without much context, changing callers all the time and not always getting the best picture. I am not the best interpreter out there by a long shot, and I don’t have everything everybody else has like oral skills or platform-level signing skills, but I am a solid Deaf club ASL-style interpreter with smooth voicing skills and 25 years of experience. It’s not bragging, it’s just who I am. If you have had me before in any one of the three VRS companies where I have worked, you may have been one of the many who asked me if my parents are Deaf (no) or if not, where did I learn to sign like that? (socialization plus school plus linguistic talent) and trust me, I rely on all 25 years of my experience to have a successful shift. It’s fun but it’s not easy. I cannot imagine having inexperienced interpreters there, and if the companies have less money coming in, that’s who they will attract. Nobody will like it and it’s not equal access. It’s just one more way to keep Deaf people from getting good interpreters, as if there isn’t already enough communication oppression going on in the world. Budget cuts start off by hurting the interpreter and end up by hurting the consumer.
It’s me, again.
Last night, I saw four (4) three-rate tier systems that NECA recommended to FCC. I am confused as to the reason for NECA to submit four different 3-rate tier systems for FCC to decide.
Also, I am confused by the fact one large VRS provider received $735 million of investment and for them to say the new rates may lead them to go bankrupt. VRS is not in the business of making huge investments and profits.
I know that FCC decided to use three tier systems in past years. It created an issue for every VRS industry to provide data to NECA based on their history. As you know that today’s technology becomes more efficiently and cost more money to improve infrastructure of network and operations like Cloud computing and virtual machine, etc. It will save money in long run of backbone.
FCC decides to set one rate for all VRS industry so that way it is more fair and competitive for business. It applies to small or big industry that would help to work better for deaf users. Would it work for that?
As someone said earlier, SorensonVRS is the 800 lb gorilla in the VRS room. Any cut in rates will affect them disproportionately. I can understand their anger, but claims of impending bankruptcy?
Please.
Is there anyone who believes you could not pay quality interpreters and provide VRS service for $233 an hour? The cost of technology and bandwidth is coming down.
What SorensonVRS says in their video is that deaf consumers will no longer receive “superior service and enhanced features”. Are taxpayers required to pay for enhanced features? Does this mean they will no longer have the funds to give away equipment?
If Sorenson no longer provides superior service, consumers will gravitate to other providers. If they do not keep up with advances in technology, deaf consumers will move to other VRS providers who are cutting edge.
Sorenson’s threat to deny or restrict access to new deaf customers is hollow at best.
If they don’t want the business, let’s see what other VRS providers will offer.
C. If what you state is true, it sounds to me like that business is doing everything it can to protect itself from going bankrupt from investors willing to support their business plan, regardless of what FCC decides. Like a smart business practice from a company employing taxpayers would do. Then maybe they will last long enough to let the customer make the choice of all existing companies, rather than FCC/NECA.
From my understanding on how technology works with video phones. If the company shuts down, then the their exclusive VP will be SHUT OFF because there is no proxy server to run them.
Suppose Sorenson shuts the door, ALL of the VP-200 will not work. That will put approximately 80 percent of the market in the dark age. I doubt that the phone calls will flood to the other VRS providers very quickly. They’ll have some time to build up their company while the consumers start signing up to be their default provider. It is a lot more controlled and they won’t be overwhelmed.
It won’t be a flood gate to smaller companies. It will be channeled to each providers slowly.
Maybe we should be prepared to sign up with smaller companies as a back up. You might find out that you’ll like them better. Only you can judge.
You may want to consider on signing up with one of other companies to get a local number now in case your VP-200 stops working. You don’t want to wait in a long line to get your new local number or get your current number port forwarded. I am sure that the smaller VRS providers are going to control how many consumers that they will add on to their list to prevent themselves from becoming Tier 3 or miss their 3 minute rule. You want to be safe than sorry.
Who said Sorenson would shut down?
Please stop multiplying rates by 60. Thank you.
I am sure that the smaller VRS providers are going to control how many consumers that they will add on to their list to prevent themselves from becoming Tier 3
How? If u call, they have to answer.
I don’t believe Sorenson will be forced to shut down. I think they will be forced to charge for the use of their VPs. If the new rates take affect the day of free Videophones and free Tech Support will be long gone. I believe this is the underlying intention of the FCC….. to put the financial burden of owning a phone back on the deaf population just as it is with the hearing population.
The question is how will Sorenson and others charge for thier services? Will it be a monthly fee with a signed two year contract like we have with cell phones? Will it be a one time purchase fee? Who knows? All I know is that Sorenson will not survive with the new rates doing what they do now (providing free phones and tech support) so a big change is coming!
Deaf people have argued for equality and they are about to get it in the sense that we are going to have to pay for our own phones just like the hearing people do. The only way it won’t be equal is if the cost of owning a VP is substantially higher than a regular hearing phone.
Ed,
From what I can tell, the conclusion of the December 2009 report to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, which was to initiate a full investigation and audit of Sorenson, never materialized. Do you think this rate proposal is linked to that report? How does the resignation of Thomas Chandler, the former DRO chief that supported rate cuts, play into the liklihood of the outcome? Is that a sign that the chance of a rate cut to Sorenson higher or lower? I would like know your thoughts?
Evlyn,
Many factors influenced the outcome of the VRS rates and the history is long. So it is difficult to pinpoint particular factors that created this dilemma. Really I can say that frauds, scams, and all illegal activities played a BIG part in causing these rates. The Report you spoke of probably spurred FCC to take a hard look at rates as well. Tom Chandler is no longer with the FCC; what does that mean? I don’t know. Did Tom stir something? Possibly. So really there are many factors from all angles that influenced the outcome.
Hello, my name is Wendy. I would like to ask you question. How can I enter and inform FCC. I want to tell them how my feeling about Sorenson as neccessary! Can you help me? how?
Ed,
Something doesn’t add up to me. If Tom resigned out of frusteration that the FCC wasn’t doing anything to reduce “overcompensation” in the industry, how do you explain the 40% rate reduction in Tier III that were proposed right after he resigned? It seems like either something changed at the FCC in the month following Tom’s resignation, or this proposed rate doesn’t really have legs?
Evlyn,
I would love to be a fly at the FCC and learn all the internal political secrets ;-] Your guess is as good as mine. I can only educate-guess based on my years at TPUC – regulatory agency like FCC is.
eyes open & thumbs up..
Wendy,
Try going to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=ia293
Fill out your names, address, etc. and then make your comment. This is probably the easiest way to do that. You also could go to VRS provider’s websites; a few of them already have way to do that.
Example: http://www.convorelay.com/fcc
I suggest the one to the FCC is best if you are not intimidated by the “form” of FCC. FCC prefers the ones with personal opinion.
eyes open & thumbs up..
Hello:
I have a question about how the tier system works, similar to our progressive income tax. Are tiers like tax brackets?
Is each provider paid for all of their monthly minutes one tier rate based on their total OR are they paid x rate for the first 50,000 mins, y rate for next 450,000 minutes and then z rate for over 500,000. If that is the case, then a company who does 550,000 a month would not suffer too much since only the last 50,000 minutes are at the lowest z rate.
If not, then a company who does 510,000 minutes in a month would bring in more money than if they did 490,000, right?
Can someone answer this please.
Thanks.
Pat
When we ask what goes into the new rate calculations, i wonder can it be related to last summer court fight with one provider who had to go to court to establish the right to be able to communicate with its customers?
http://us.generation-nt.com/federal-appeals-court-unanimously-rejects-fcc-restrictions-vrs-press-1574301.html
just curious
@ Pat – your second example was correct. A company that produces 1,000,000 minutes would be reimbursed @ rate x for the first 50,000 minutes, rate y for the next 450,000 minutes, and then rate z for all of the rest of the minutes. Not such a big deal if you produce a small amount of minutes, but pretend that you’re a company that is producing several million minutes per month. The majority of your minutes would fall into the 3rd tier. Which means a majority of your income would be cut by around 40%.
If the FCC is worried about companies getting too rich off the current rates, i say cut the rates so that the companies are less profitable, and have to work smarter. But a 40% cut? Really? Any other businesses out there that could survive such a sudden and drastic loss in revenue?
“Yes, I believe that every investors should profit from any business but to put fear in their own customers? I am not sure how to feel about that.”
how u feel when snap does it? i hate panicking, but can see their point
“Is there anyone who believes you could not pay quality interpreters and provide VRS service for $233 an hour? ”
No. We would LOVE $233 an hour! They will get billed for below $100 at FCC/NECA. Rate X 60 does NOT equal FCC bill. It’s new math!
I’m puzzled by the comments on the VP-200. If Sorenson goes bust, the device will still work. You would just have to port your 10 digit number to another provider.
If the device only worked with Sorenson, it would violate FCC regs.
And Sorenson is not going bust.
‘You would just have to port your 10 digit number to another provider.”
Yes, but then that provider would become very large very quickly, and be cut to $3.89 per connected minute. Also, small companies have small work forces, and they would be forced to hire laid off Sorenson interpreters to go work in the abandoned Sorenson centers. It would just be the same thing all over again. I do not think Sorenson will go bust, but that’s only because I don’t think that the FCC will cut quite that low. However, as a provider, they have every right to close the company down anytime they want. So does anybody else, and even Snap said could not continue with cuts. My understanding is that several European countries had video relay temporarily, and then had it taken away. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if it happened somewhere, it could theoretically happen here. It’s an expensive thing, and you do have to fund it to keep it. Suggesting a 40% cut, even in theory but still putting it on paper and sending it out as two of four possible options for the whole world to see, devalues what we all are doing. To suggest something like that and then get upset with a company for saying that they couldn’t survive it is pretty nervy. If you slam hard with a possible 40% cut, don’t be surprised if somebody slams back. And then they say they’re not trying to close this down. Of course not! They want this to keep going no matter how low the reimbursement rate is. I don’t like panicking, but I don’t think I would have taken such a suggestion lightly if it had been my company.
Hmmmm. If it had been my company, I would have regretted being so high-handed back in 2008 when the audit was originally requested. I would have taken a little more seriously the FCC’s admonitions about a history of improper reimbursements. And I would have regretted reckless expansion at a time when there were nowhere near enough qualified interpreters to handle the job.
What I wouldn’t do is to think that this all just came out of the blue and had nothing to do with my arrogant and heedless behavior to date.
I’m just saying…
So RP, you’re saying that the rates NECA proposed are arbitrary, and subjective based on one companies alleged behavior, rather than on objective cost estimates?
Perhaps it is intended as a punishment, indeed. I don’t know. It’s hard to know the inner workings of the companies. However, I will comment on one thing that I have been told about by a number of people. Apparently, about two years ago, Sorenson pushed hard to bring in as many interpreters as they possibly could find, and now that the high level of need did not materialize, both the newly acquired interpreters and the ones who have been there for ages are having a hard time getting regular hours. Stuff happens, but I cannot figure out why in the world they pushed for such a large expansion. Video relay is popular, yes, but there just doesn’t seem to be any basis for such a large and quick expansion, and they usually demonstrate that they know how to run a business properly. I’m just not sure what made them want to do this. There must be some reason that I don’t know about. I just don’t see how it benefited them or the interpreters or the consumers.
Terpgirl- there was a need, and for quite some time Sorenson was begging terps to work because the demand was more than they could handle, and lots of their terps weren’t working many hours at all at sorenson. Then the economy went to crap, freelance work started drying up for some, and suddenly all the terps that didn’t want more than a few hours before now wanted as many as they could get. But the demand wasnt/isnt alowing them to get that many hours.
If those same terps had been willing to commit more hours to sorenson, there wouldn’t have been the need to hire like crazy. The need was there, and they did need all the terps they could that were willing to work. Now, the demand is the same, but all those terps are looking for hours that aren’t there because the need has been met.
Terpgirl,
I’ve heard the same stories you have, though with a different twist than the one offered by Anon.
Why the outrageous expansion… Aesop’s fable about the dog in the manger comes to mind. If I wanted to corner the market on a limited resource, I might just try to hire everything in sight. Really puts a crimp on the competition, huh? As an added benefit, it puts all of those overpaid interpreters I hired years ago on notice that I can hire two people from Podunk for what I’m paying one person in Big City… Doesn’t do much for morale, but it keeps my employees in line, and it doesn’t hurt the bottom line… Flooding the market with cheap labor is a tactic that has been used successfully by industry for years.
Adam,
No, what you are saying is not what I am saying. Nowhere do I describe NECA’s proposed rates as arbitrary or objective. Those were your words.
I must say, though, that the confusion about whose words are whose highlights what a confusing time it is in VRS work. VIs are taught from the time we first walk through the door to love, honor, and obey the FCC. Interpreters are told that we must sacrifice even Discretion at the FCC altar, because the FCC demands it, and when the FCC demands something, well, that’s that.
Now we are told that the same infallible FCC to whom we have paid fealty all these years wants us to go bankrupt! And END VRS AS WE KNOW IT!!!! It’s so confusing!! Who can we turn to? Who can we trust???
But if the FCC is wrong about reimbursement rates, what else might they be wrong about?
anon – thx for info but always thought community terps were usually used where legally required.
rp – “improper reimbursements”? do tell!
rp – you certainly implied it when you said
“What I wouldn’t do is to think that this all just came out of the blue and had nothing to do with my arrogant and heedless behavior to date.” and “I would have regretted being so high-handed back in 2008 when the audit was originally requested”
If it DID have something to do with arrogant and heedless behavior, then it certainly would be arbitrary and subjective, wouldn’t it?
I just feel like saying for the record that there are at least 2 Adams posting on here
Not too surprising given how common the name is.
Adam, (either or both of you, smile)
I did not imply causality. That was you. I implied remorse, which just goes to show you what a fantasyland I live in. At least that was my intent. And maybe we are just using the words differently, but if it DID have to do with specific behavior, it wouldn’t have been arbitrary, would it? It would have been targeted.
Terpgirl,
I don’t have the reference handy but I’m sure someone here does, since I dl’d it from a link on this site. This was from the FCC report to some government committee, maybe Energy and Commerce? I think it was from 2008. It was the report where some in the FCC expressed displeasure with the tenure of Chairman Martin. I think the title was something like Deception and Distrust. There is a trail of emails included wherein some in the FCC (who were in a position to know) allege that Sorenson had been improperly reimbursed to an extraordinary extent. My recollection is that it was nearly $200 million. And it was only an allegation, and I am quite sure that Sorenson denied it. Of course, since everything happens behind the curtain, only the Wizard of Oz knows for sure!