FCC Notice Of Inquiry
30 06 2010All..
Ladies and Gentlemen, this NOI is very important and MOST certainly will have a far-reaching impact on defining exactly what VRS is and the rationale for compensation rates for VRS providers. This NOI will be exhausitive undertaking for sure.
FCC quote:
"In this Notice of Inquiry (NOI), we take a fresh look at the Commission’s video relay service (VRS) rules so that we can ensure that this vital program is effective, efficient, and sustainable in the future."
"..a fresh look.." certainly is an understatement of the century! The FCC is taking a bold steps to of possibly overhauling the infrastructure of VRS. Is that good? Yes, I believe so, but this is where critical comments are critical. We – by "we" I mean ALL of us – need to respond to let the FCC know what we think VRS ought to be and how VRS providers should be handled.
FCC presents NOI in two parts:
Part One: basically seeks whether multiple VRS providers, one or a few should be adopted and why, etc.
Part Two: basically asking to whether VRS should be re-defined or not. If so, how so and in what way, etc.
Caveat here: above summarization does not tell whole story of the NOI.
The whole purpose of NOI is to gather information from all concerned, and then the FCC will make its final decisions. Click to the link, and be prepared to cultivate patience as it is a long reading.
Since this is long NOI, best way to show items is via the table of contents which I typed briefly below.
Part I Adjustments and Modifications to Improve the Current VRS
Compensation Methodology
1. Accounting Issues
2. Company-Specific Compensation
3. Outreach and Marketing Costs
4. Research and Development Costs
5. Videophone Equipment
6. Protection of Providers from Under-Compensation and Avoidance of Over-compensation
7. Certification
Part II – Broader and Economic Issues Concerning VRS
1. The Components of VRS
2. The Demand for VRS
3. The Supply of VRS
4. The Regulation of VRS
5. The Incentives of Providers
6. The Incentives and Needs of VRS Users
7. Other Regulations Affecting VRS Communications
Just by looking at the terms used for table of contents, one could say that the FCC is going to collect lot of comments from VRS Industry as well as the movers and shakers of the TRS world. Again, I cannot stress strongly enough that this is very important NOI and possibly the most important ever in the history of TRS.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-111A1.pdf
Thanks Ed, really helps how you outlined the issues. It is really long, and I’m concerned we Consumers are not going to have enough time to digest and dialouge about each to develop a comprehensive response.
May I suggest for you and other VRS who vlogs, to ASL each one by one, instead of all items at one time?
Thanks, Sheri
Come one, come all! We, the FCC, need your help in figuring out how to stop Sorenson’s VRS machine! We’ve tried interoperability and allowing the rest of the industry to take a free ride on Sorenson’s investment in the VP-200, paying Sorenson less for the same service (tiered rates) and even putting CSD’s ex-lawyer (Karen Peltz-Strauss) in the working group that sets VRS rates. *Wave to Karen* Still, Sorenson persists and has, in fact, INCREASED their market share, the nerve of them! We hear they’re in business to make money so grab your pitchforks; we’re going to have a public rate hanging! Sorenson is a monster that we cannot politically tolerate here at the FCC!
So here’s what your FCC needs from you. Put on your thinking caps and help us figure out how we can fashion the VRS rules to make it so we can logically justify forcing the largest, most efficient, best managed, non-fraudulent provider to shift market share revenues to less efficient, often fraudulent competitors that the deaf obviously don’t really care to use even after years and years of marketing and education. We NEED to pay more for these same VRS minutes, it’s for the good of the industry and because, well, we’re kind of mad at Sorenson. Even better, can you help us determine how to make Sorenson provide VRS at a loss or, darn it, maybe just get deaf people to WANT to use another VRS provider on their Sorenson VP so we can stop overtly bending the rules for these “little” guys?? Unfortunately, these same folks keep ripping off the fund and we are being forced to slap their wrists on a regular basis or even send them to jail which makes us look bad. I know, I know, we continue to look the other way on whitelabeling and our own loose regulation and oversight allowed millions of dollars to be stolen from the fund right under our nose in just a few short years! Admittedly, that was probably our bad but we can make up for it here – help us set rules to make some of these little guys bigger so we can stop this horrible monster called Sorenson. We’ve been assured by providers like Purple that they will stop focusing on scheming up ways to steal from the fund and start innovating services for the deaf once we start putting some real money into their coffers!
What’s got us scratching our heads over here is that Sorenson is much bigger than anyone else so therefore their basic costs like interpreter labor MUST be drastically lower. Call center rents must be a lot less for Sorenson than for everyone else and we assume that their interpreters have to be happily lining up to take lower paying jobs than competitors across the street offer and that even electricity pricing MUST be special for Sorenson. If a Sorenson employee walks into Wal-Mart, we are sure that the rollbacks on all aisles begin immediately with that little yellow smiley guy dancing to and fro, they are just that wonderful. Also, Sorenson couldn’t possibly be giving their interpreters yearly raises – that’d RAISE Sorenson’s costs every year, especially if their interpreters enjoyed working for Sorenson and stayed for many years instead of the constant cycle of hiring and then laying off that’s preferred by the other guys. In fact, we here at the FCC have a feeling that many of Sorenson’s employees like them so much that they HAVE to be working for free! We need you to help us figure out why that if economies of scale don’t really apply to over 80% of Sorenson’s costs (labor), how in the heck are they able to provide VRS profitably when no one else can even at a higher rate? We also need you to help us understand Algebra 1 – that class was, like, the hardest ever!
You see, since VRS is small potatoes and, well honestly, since Tom Chandler came to town, deaf people haven’t been that important to us here at the FCC. So, we’re going to ask you to stack the deck for us – we never really understood the industry to start with and so many of us are new to our jobs this year. We know, we know, this proposed process will amount to everyone with a financial stake in the game versus Sorenson but that’s kind of the point. We need to create a believable scenario where this NOI looks fair and reasonable but all the comments we actually implement are from a vocal 1% of the inside stakeholders, mostly executives and employees of small VRS providers and groups that are in bed with those folks like NAD. If we’re lucky, Kelby and Larry Brick will enlighten us with their always educated and unbiased perspective. Then we can claim that we’ve listened and carefully evaluated everything only to implement the same version of the industry that we’ve already got, free markets be damned. To be clear, we here at the FCC will do everything in our power to keep the smaller providers in business, even giving Purple a line of credit to cover their fraudulent activities in a year that they paid their CEO $2.3 million while stealing around $18 million from the fund with their employee-to-employee minutes scam. We’ll call it a “loan” wink, wink, and Purple has sworn they will pay us (and their investors) back if we can just swing some of Sorenson’s revenues their way. Actually, why don’t we just make this easy? If everyone would just let us know if your VRS company is billing fraudulently (or intends to in the future) we’ll just save time and give you a loan instead of letting you go out of business when we finally get around to figuring it out! Remember, we need all guns forward and aimed at Sorenson in this desperate hour, let’s not sweat the small stuff.
Psst… Come a little closer, let me tell you a secret. The end result of this NOI is really about keeping the doors open so we can get another look at Sorenson’s books here in 6 months to determine if they’ve somehow became profitable (again) after laying off lots and lots of people, mostly the deaf and interpreters, and then WHAMMO! We lower the Tier 3 rates on them again so that they’re not profitable anymore! Can you say “Mission Accomplished!”? Wash, Rinse, Repeat for the next rate cycle! Heck, maybe we’ll even increase the rates and size of Tier 2 so that we can pay CSD and HOVRS lots, lots more for the minutes that we’ve “reallocated” to them from Sorenson when we force Sorenson’s hold times to go through the roof and those new hold times for end users “persuade” them to start using competitors. We know, it’s not exactly functional equivalency but we promised that VRS as you know it will not change and we keep our promises here in Washington!
Thanks for your time folks and keep in mind that we’re the government and we’re here to help. With everyone’s input (except for the silent 90% majority that loves Sorenson, you need not speak up) I’m sure that we can work together to make it look like we here at the FCC haven’t been sleeping at the wheel and that we’re even remotely qualified to regulate the VRS industry. Please help, our only other option is to just write the #2 and #3 VRS competitors blank checks and pray that their executives could figure out a way to find their own a**es with both hands. Actually, just writing checks would be too obvious, we can’t (really) do that – but we have a wonderful NOI that we’d like for you to take a look at, your comments are appreciated! So to all of you deaf out there, please assist us in making your VRS services as miserable an experience as going to the DMV or filing your taxes each year by removing any incentive for smart, talented people to work in the industry. Now that’s what we here at the FCC call a win-win situation!
I have read through the NOI. One part that struck me was when they said IF the FCC decides to keep paying for VRS with a competitive system they would like to hear our opinions. If we, as consumers and providers, can not come together and make this system honest, reasonable, and profitable (but not greedy) the government may sell the contract to the lowest bidder. I would not like the FCC to decide that a non-competitive form of compensation is the reasonable response to this problem. This would mean QUALITY and RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT toward functional equivalency would no long be what a VRS company works for. We must find a fair solution so that ADA law can be fulfilled and we can move closer to equal access for Deaf and Hard of Hearing people. Our system is the best, historically. However, with new technology, education, and a common goal we can make VRS better for ALL consumers.
Speak up! Continue to speak up! Share ideas!
Best Regards
Sherri, I agree with you that the NOI should be in ASL and released on Vlogs. My question why in the heck didn’t FCC do this? After all, it is their NOI and they should be making ASL Vlogs according to their interpretation of their intent and questions. It seems very strange to me that they proclaimed that VRS is the most functionally equivalent to voice phone services. What happened to functionally equivalent NOI?
Di
I agree with Sheri (hi there) and Diana that the NOI and issues should be ASLized. However, a large percentage of deaf people are unable to express their thoughts in English, so a large number of deaf might not submit their feedback, ideas, thoughts, concerns, etc, or they might file comments using templates provided by others.
In order for FCC to truly receive unbiased feedback from all walks of life, from all levels of language, directly from users, they should provide a platform that collects comments from the public in their language, ASL.
Greg, I hope you’re reading this and I hope you agree that FCC is not going to get much, unless you provide a direct and accessible platform for people to leave comments. Unless, that’s what the FCC wants?
The interim rates are set for a year, you’re urging consumers to file comments in 30 days, then follow up with replies to comments another 30 days. That leaves 300 days for FCC to disseminate public’s comments. I believe it’s doable.
I hope they will address Title I and II issues as well.
Several examples touching upon these issues are already happening. There is Purple’s partnership with the Metropolitatian Police Department (Washington, DC) which appears to allow MPD to meet its Title II obligations by utilizing VRS, a Title IV service. I’d like to know whether it is appropriate for the TRS Fund to cover the costs for a service (reasonable accommodation) that’s essentially’s MPD’s responsibility under Title II?
Another example involves using VRS for long distance education courses and other similar offerings. Using VRS allows these educational institutions to avoid their ADA responsibilites by not having to arrange for interpreting. Finally, we have the employee/business calls and we all know about this due to the Purple situation.
I hope the FCC will set some clear boundaries or at least answer the question of whether it is permissible for any entity to meet their ADA obligations by using VRS, a Title IV service which is paid by the public.
Thanks Ed for keeping us informed. I am glad that the FCC is finally taking a closer look at this. To start, these services should be designed witht he “customer”, that would be us, in mind. As I have stated before, why would the tax payers foot the bill. I think the overhaul should be in a form of the so called services. I am sure that if the FCC were to establish a flat rate for reimbursement, lets say $4.80/min and then allow the providers to charge a plan fee and charge for the extra so called services they would not only become a lot more efficient but will also start at looking at innovation in a whole different perspective. Right now a lot of these providers have been taking advantage of the rates. Also this will allow for the program to develop a lot closer to the hearing and sustain the basics of the ADA, equality. With the freedom to offer other services and charge for those “comfort” services such as video message, and special alerts a person can decide whether they want it or simply decline them and then maintain the basic VRS service. This will not only cut on the abuse but will lay down a foundation for innovation and regulation while maintaining equility and providing the services needed.
Sheri,
I am considering your suggestion about video clip for each.
I wish that the FCC had released that in during school months instead of Summer months. Take myself as a good example: I will participate in a panel discussion in a conference, go to the NAD Conference to give two presentations, and have a long much needed family vacation, and all in July. What remaining days do I have to work on comments to this all important NOI? I am sure I am not alone in this.
Here We Go,
Altho I do not agree with some of your points, I certainly enjoyed the satire of it.
Daniel,
Agree. Perhaps several national services of the deaf/hoh/other abbreviations can offer a way to make it easier for deaf/hoh submit their comments.
Rest of you,
I truly appreciate this thought-provoking comments y’all have made.
eyes open & thumbs up..
deafwarrior,
The tax payers don’t foot the bill. It’s actually the surcharge on your phone bill that pay for it. So, basically it’s the phone carriers are the ones who’s funding the TRS.
Cheers
i am disagreed with sorenson dirty business all i say vote say no sorenson
Here We Go…. Are you saying that we should excuse SVRS CEO’s bonus income of $22 MILLION dollars? (just to outdo Purple’s CEO of 2.3 Million dollars as you claim) How about Sorenson’s owners such as GTCR Golden Rauner, Madison Derborn receiving over $180 MILLION dollars in bonus income in the past 6 months! something to think about… if CEO and their executive management gives up 75% of that Bonus income, Perhaps they wouldn’t be screaming bankruptcy! (they would be still getting at least $50 million dollars, that should be more than plenty to pay for their McDonald’s lunch or Dinner!
For the sake of many deaf friends working in the VRS industry, I don’t wish to see any of them to lose their jobs regardless of who they work for.
It’s really easy to see Sorenson as the villain just because they’re so big and well-oiled machine, but we should also appreciate the fact that they employ large number of deaf employees. So do other VRS providers.
In regard to FCC’s NOI, I would like to see a greater transparency and accountability in our VRS providers. I also support the R&D, big time, because we definitely need better technology to keep up with the hearing world. I would like to see our VP to go “mobile” sooner rather than later.
Without R&D, it would stifle the development of new and innovative VP products and our progress toward full functionality equivalent would be slowed.
Cheers
Grains,
To clarify who paid for TRS. It is telephone users of all telephone companies. I have explained that before, but there is no surcharge in telephone bill that pays for Interstate TRS Fund (that is what is paying for VRS and interstate TRS calls). What you see in telephone bill surcharge and USF are for states only. TRS regulations forbid telephone for adding Interstate TRS Fund surcharge – it is what is probably safely called hidden surcharge – but the FCC did that to ensure that VRS is equal to regular telephone network thus should not identify surcharge as being for that.
eyes open & thumbs up…
La la la la,
Where did you find the $22 million bonus for SVRS’ president? I think Here We Go got his figures from Purple’s SEC filing on AllDeaf.com,
La la la la
Please provide documentation of your numbers so we can believe you. Without proof, reasonable folks might think you were making stuff up just to make a compay you don’t like look bad.
I suggest you to fill out the paperwork to become an investor! and you will see for yourself! due to NDA (sorenson’s favorite word)
I’m with Be Fair on the call for documentation. La la la la laid out some pretty explosive charges. It would be good to know what corroboration exists for them.
Of course, that’s true of Here We Go, too. Unless Ed is right and that post was meant as satire. It read a lot more like the transcript of a management meeting at Shaky S, to me but if it was satire, then I guess we can take the claims for “non-fraudulent” and “most efficient” and “yearly raises” with a grain of salt.
Unless if by non-fraudulent you mean unindicted? The latter is true, but the former, not so much. When I was there VIs routinely reported a scam where the time clock just kept spinning and callers made pointless call after pointless call to 800 number after 800 number. Some callers even described the scam to the VIs. Management told us to process all calls as usual. Then there were the incredible hold times when installers would call back to HQ in SLC. Both of those scams stopped when it became known that the FBI was nosing around, but more recently, according to my sister who still works there, they are passing off hundreds (thousands?) of uncertified “signers” as interpreters, something that would certainly be considered fraudulent in the community.
Maybe by “most efficient” you mean most oppressive? I did appreciate the comparison to WalMart, though. My sister tells me that some terps refer to Shaky S as CallMart (where the standards keep falling) because of the way they treat their employees.
Yearly raises? Not while I was there. My sister has been there over five years and has had two raises, one for 1.5% and the other for less. This at a time when the business (and the cost of living) has gone through the roof. Maybe by raises you mean bonuses? I understand management does receive those yearly.
Back to bonuses, if La la la la has evidence, I’d love to see it. The story of the man who threatened to end VRS as we know it to protect his $22 million payday would be quite a story if there were anything to it.
Happy Fourth, everybody, and of course, Go Spain!!!
Folks,
Let’s go easy on SVRS bashing please as I think there were plenty already. Present facts only please and can do without the negative adjectives ;-] Factual reporting takes care of itself and let public judge based on that.
eyes ever open and thumbs up…
Ed —
Thank you for managing the mudslinging as always. You are a gentleman and we all appreciate the light taps reminding people to be civil here in your house.
I am less worried about a longwinded advertisement to pity $oren$on than I am about their leadership churning out thousands of e-mails which use fear and manipulation to get Deaf customers to cut-and-paste comments to the FCC.
Hey guys, we’re onto you, and so is the FCC CGB and DRO. When they receive stacks of identically tearful responses to your concocted threats of “they’ll take your VPs away” and “cut VRS services”, you just end up looking more pathetic.
Thanks Ed for keeping this a fair and informative post. I agree that the SVRS bashing does get out of control. However, witht hat being stated, we also need to look at the other providers. I know that there is only 3-4 major players, them too would need some bashing as they do practice the same dirty game as SVRS. Bottom line is some of these companies are in it for themselves and not with the best intentions to service the deaf community. If you do some research on their upper management and their CEO’s you can find some very interesting facts. Also if you look closely at the videos that they post you would clearly see that they are coached in every word they sign. Basically once you get pass the hype and the smoke they try to blow it is clear that they are mostly business people trying to get your hard earned money. I am all for them making a profit, however, I do not support their greed nor their practices to limit and control what equipment you use and wich provider to use. I can tell you that in my experience is the smaller local provider that seems to be the most understanding of our needs. Once the provider gets big, greed seems to dictate their actions.
Someone recently pointed out a “mobile” MVP and I disagree that MVP is actually “mobile” in the truest sense. The reason I brought up the “mobile” is because of my previous comment that I have made here.
MVP is “portable” but not “mobile” because it relies mostly on the local area network (LAN) which is usually found in the wireless router with specific firewall setting itself. The Purple marketed it as “mobile” which I think is misleading.
In my own definition, a true mobile VP is when you don’t actually need a LAN with specific firewall setting. A Mobile VP can go anywhere wirelessly without having to reconfigure the firewall setting each time when you go to different area.
Purple just filed its 2010 annual report with the SEC. 226 pages of entertaining reading. Enjoy because it’s the last time you will ever see their books — they delisted and then claimed an exemption from filing because they have fewer than 300 shareholders. In fact, 94 percent of their stock is held by their biggest creditor. Anyway, so much for transparency, right?
“94 percent of their stock is held by their biggest creditor”
Dangerous. Just ask Snap. And proof that there still aren’t profits.
Terp Girl: and there’s an ex parte letter by Purple describing a meeting with the staff of the FCC’s chairman’s office, and apparently they are not happy with the new rates because they’re in the top tier. It really does not appear to be a rosy picture for Purple in the near future. They still have to pay back the FCC and their stockholders one way or another.
And Purple hosted a huge party in Las Vegas for 1,000 attendees. Is that a wise use of their $?
Summer 2009: Purple, Viable, Snap, CSDVRS and other VRS providers receive various subpoenas from the FBI, FCC, and other agencies. FBI conducts raids at various Viable locations.
November 2009: Law enforcement officers arrest John Yeh and the Viable executives, interpreters, and independent contractors who allegedly conspired to defraud the federal government.
December 17, 2009: FCC holds first workshop on VRS reform.
February 25, 2010: FCC reaffirms rules and policies regarding VRS service and Purple gets involved in the stand-off with the FCC over suspicious VRS minutes.
March 9, 2010: Purple acknowledges debt and plans to repay the TRS Fund a substantial amount of $.
April 30, 2010: NECA submits payment formula which generated a lot of discussion on how the rates are determined, and the discussion ensued until June 28, 2010 where the FCC affirmed NECA’s recommendations, more or less.
May 27, 2010: FCC takes steps to ensure VRS remains vibrant.
June 28, 2010: NOI released.
July 26, 2010: 4 VRS providers ask the FCC to extend the NOI comment dates because they need more time to think about the issues.
https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/72610trs.pdf
Not sure how more time will help if we have been discussing this for almost a year. The FCC needs to move fast on this in order to determine the cost methodology for the rates starting July 2011 and this delay will not help anything at all.
As far as the party is concerned, I think they have to do something like that. Also, they probably wrote it off as an expense, so they probably made money in the end because they needed the tax break. At least that’s my best guess. Again, running a big company is different from running a personal budget. There are certain things you have to do to keep going. However, I am extremely worried about Purple. They closed their Long Beach and their Minnesota Centers last week, and everybody who remained an employee has to take a 5% reduction in pay. That can’t be good. But my question is, how in the world did they get in the top tier? They weren’t in it with the pumped minutes, and now that they have ended those, they’re in a higher tier? I thought they would be in a lower one. Is this from the police contract?