Convo Posts its Comments on FCC’s Notice of Inquiry
17 08 2010All..
Normally I would quote statements or offer a brief summary, but the NOI has well over 150 questions. So you all will need to read them. Some comments are easy to understand and some are not. There are little over 50 pages.
As soon as other VRS providers submit their NOI comments, I will post them as well.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Long Link: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020708312
Pooped out after typing up that NOI comment, eh?
Your Convo Relay NOI comment was outstanding. You and your Convo Relay team truly understand the VRS industry and are able to articulate your thoughts on many aspects of the NOI very effectively.
As you may have already found out, I submitted my comments on the NOI. While not as polished and articulate as yours, I do see much common ground. We do differ on two important points, though.
In your NOI comment, you reiterated your interpretations on the basis of functional equivalency. That’s fine and I can certainly understand and appreciate Convo Relay’s position. Mine is much more broader, due to the ‘Pac Man’ nature of the functional equivalency mandate, gobbling up all the dots in the rest of the ADA until there’s nothing left. Interpreters are a finite resource and let’s leave it at that.
And I suspect that Convo Relay may not agree with my suggestion that users start paying a flat monthly rate for videophone/VRS services. I expect to get quite some flak over this issue from industry participants and VRS consumers, but I’ll see how the issue develops during the NOI reply period before commenting further.
In all, quite a start for the NOI process! The FCC Inter-Bureau Task Force on VRS Reform has a lot to chew upon. Thank you and the Convo Relay team for comprehensively replying to their NOI, and making your place in VRS history once again.
Hey there-
I enjoyed your NOI response as well. I’d like to talk about paying for the VRS part. I think Convo’s position on that is pretty obvious.
Instead of services, let’s focus on the equipment part – the hearing community are either required to buy the equipment (i.e. iPhone, etc) or sign up for a service contract with a deeply discounted device.
With VRS, service contract probably takes your ability to choose providers away and may be difficult to implement. So with equipment, we suggested a nationwide voucher program for the Deaf and HOH community.
This voucher would allow you to purchase any equipment. However, if you wanted 2nd or 3rd piece of equipment – you would have to pay for it without any discounts.
In our eyes, we thought this was a progressive functional equivalency move the industry could use: providing equipment to the community and requiring that they purchase the additional equipment at cost on their own.
I’m particular sensitive about this part because when I worked for CPUC’s DDTP program: distributing the wireless equipment to the Deaf and HOH community in state of California about 2-3 years ago. I’ve seen a lot of people who are still without technology because they can’t afford it or are out there in the rural areas. Because of that, I believe there needs to be a balance in this area.
Lastly, we also believe this will save FCC a lot of money as well.
Robin
Who pays for the vouchers?
One more thing:
We also talked about offsetting the P2P costs to the consumer groups as well. So we’re not that far apart in our line of thinking.
Robin
On page 20 of our NOI response we mentioned this:
“Convo suggests that vouchers be issued to qualified applicants on payment of a nominal fee, sufficient to cover inventory maintenance and administrative processing costs. Also, by having applicants pay fee, they will feel more ownership and responsibility to the product they will receive.”
Hi all,
Not being completely familiar with how a VRS operates, I have a few comments and questions.
Is the FCC, by reimbursing the VRS for the minutes used, paying for long-distance calls from the VRS to the hearing party whenever the deaf VRS user dials a long-distance voice number on the VP? If so, why? Why shouldn’t the deaf users pay for the call just like they would with a landline TTY and TRS? By getting free long-distance calls through the VRS, we are in effect getting BETTER than a functional equivalent service!
Why not have the VRS providers operating like a telephone company by offering a monthly fee to their customers to facilitate a point to point VP service? Let the providers compete on basis of prices, products and services just like the cell phone companies!
Now taking cover from the incoming darts!
Gary
Gary,
No, that’s a good question. Answer is no, the Interstate TRS fund (that pays for VRS and other relay services) does not subsidize the long distance charges by the hearing person. Two things happen: VRS providers absorb the cost or pass the charges along to hearing person. Now because VRS is Internet based, there is nothing that deaf/hoh pays so no long distance charges for the deaf.
Now what you are referring is to charge deaf/hoh anyway. Believe it or not, this is one of the issues FCC is bringing up and asking public for opinion on that.
Maybe down in the future this might happen, but very difficult in Internet based services where the service is subsidized by Interstate TRS fund. It is hard to “compete” when the service is subsidized.
Comments from VRS providers on NOI will explore that area as well as for possible alternatives.
The darts didn’t hurt, did they? ;-]
eyes open & thumbs up,
Robin, I would like to understand why you think signing up with a VRS provider takes away customer choice? It’s my choice to pick a provider of my preference and to bind myself to a fixed-length contract. We do the same for pagers, internet service, utilities, etc., and I’d suppose that the non-hearing folks do the same for their own telecom carriers (landline, mobile, etc.). What’s the issue here? I’d think that subscriptions would provide more reliable stream of income, but as a provider with no VP product, Convo’s position is understandable, but it really does not mesh with what we usually call customer choice.
As for the fact that there are rural areas and deaf individuals who cannot afford such services, those are important issues to address but the ADA, specifically Title IV, does not address those issues so it shouldn’t be taken into consideration here. FCC has other programs that will address those issues so we shouldn’t worry about that here.
Another thing I’d like to point out (not addressed to anyone in specific) is that functional equivalency does not mean we have to use the most advanced technology that currently exists. The use of holograms may be cool and all that but the ADA does not say that the FCC has to support this kind of research & development. All that’s required is that it has to be technically feasible and also efficient.
Finally, the future of VRS, in my opinion, lies with applications and software, not physical products. All of the advances being made today are apparently being done in developing a product that can do just about anything (Apple’s iPad is a great example of that, and with the addition of cameras in the 2nd gen iPads, and also iTouch, clearly shows that this is the future of telecommunications… ) so let the deaf customers buy their own products and all VRS providers have to do is to create their own apps.
Another thing that I like about vouchers is that it seperates the funding for VRS services and equipment.
There may be some companies that are not interested in providing VRS services but have the capability of making great Videophones. If you include funding for equipment in the per minute rate these companies are not able ot enter the market. This would allow for more choices and more choices means more compitition and higer quality products.
There is no reason why you need to provide VRS services to be able to produce VRS equipment. The skills needed to provide VRS services and make a videophone are very different. I wonder what companies capable of designing a competitive Videophone are being left out of the market because they know they cannot make a profit without also providing VRS services?
CNW,
Your comments have valid points. The main difference is that with regular telephone industry, they are not subsidized – so it does not make sense for hearing persons to pay for several service providers – a few wealthy actually do. All relay services for deaf/hoh are subsidized – so it allows choices for deaf/hoh to chose from at no cost to federal funds; now if federal is strict with who qualifies (VRS industry has too many providers now) as relay provider and enforcement applied when necessary and asap – I bet number of providers would be drastically reduced.
On the functional equivalence. My concern is why can’t deaf/hoh services be “ahead” of what hearing persons have. Must we go up to the level of service that hearing persons have and go no further? I think you know the answer to that ;-]
I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. yep yep.
eyes open & thumbs up…
Great job, Ed, on the NOI. Perhaps you can help us understand why the other providers missed the deadline for responding? Did they just count on the FCC granting an extension? Or were they all waiting to see what the others would say first?
Anon,
Oh, trust me they did not miss the deadline. The deadline is yesterday (Wednesday 5 pm EST) so likely they filed before that. If that is the case, we’ll likely see them pop up in the FCC website by noon or this afternoon and the very latest tomorrow.
By the way, extension request was rejected by the FCC.
NOI is an exhaustive work if VRS providers expect to address all or most of the issues. Because of 30 day (plus a few weeks) really do not give much time to submit all this – it would require a team of experts to finish on time. So likely most of them worked to the last hour.
eyes open & thumbs up…
To check for updates on filed comments, visit this page:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=j1vaq&name=10-51
Very improved interface, I must say.
CNW,
Improved interface? Yeah. Lot easier to file, too. In the past it was not. Timely, too, cuz folks will need to check FCC’s website and the electronic file is the best way to know what the hell is going on in the relay world. So kudos to the FCC for that.
eyes open & thumbs up…
“I wonder what companies capable of designing a competitive Videophone are being left out of the market because they know they cannot make a profit without also providing VRS services?”
All of them, I guess. The community is small and the need is specific. If there’s a way to make it profitable, it will be great. Right now, we’re just trying to keep the actual video relay service as profitable as it needs to be to continue. But I would support making it profitable to make these machines, truly profitable. I don’t know how it will work, but maybe there is a way. To this point, no has been able to explain how vouchers would be funded. I mean, the states are broke, the FCC hates us, and if we charge the actual cost to the consumer, I just don’t think it will support a profit.
This week, the FCC is celebrating the National Telephone Discount Lifeline Awareness Week.
http://www.lifeline.gov/?utm_source=fcc.gov&utm_medium=rotator&utm_campaign=lifeline
Can this be a source of assistance/videophpones for the Deaf who are economically disadvantaged? That would be a better option instead of including that in the rate structure because the rate involves only the actual costs of relaying the call, not whether the end points have the appropriate equipment.
Just read Purple’s comment posted to ECFS today, and I found the discussion on remote training interesting. In my opinion, the NPRM failed to discuss Title I obligations of the ADA.
Title I discusses the obligations of employers, and the statutory language includes the following definitions (http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12112):
(9) Reasonable accommodation: the term “reasonable accommodation” may include: (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 12103. Additional definitions as used in this chapter:
(1) Auxiliary aids and services: the term “auxiliary aids and services” includes: (A) *qualified interpreters* or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments; (B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals with visual impairments; (C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and (D) other similar services and actions.
Now, as an employer, do the reasonable accommodations include the access to the telephone network? In my view, such accommodations can easily fit the language in Title I, especially Section 12103(1)(A). With that, if the FCC (or the DOJ asserting its jurisdiction w/ Title I matters) determines employers are ultimately responsible for making their remote training accessible using reasonable accommodations as clearly mandated in the ADA, is it appropriate for employers to pass off the costs of the reasonable accommodations of private business matters (training their own employees) to the public through the TRS Fund?
I do not believe that is what Congress had in mind. The FCC needs to follow Congress’ intent, and not to overstep its boundaries by setting up regulations exceeding the scope of its mandates under the ADA.
I know that a lot of people disagree with this view because under normal circumstances, employers will become more resistant to hiring PWDs or providing accommodations and it will cause more harm than good. But that’s not a valid reason to exceed the scope; just because an employer won’t do it, the public has to pay for it instead. Convenience is rarely a good reason to vary from what Congress wanted. Providers also will disagree with me because they will lose a lot of potential revenue, and of course, they don’t want that.
CNW, are you Christian Wojnar, former attorney at FCC and legal representative for Hawk Relay? Just want to be sure I understand who I’m talking with here.
Youve previously raised in Ed’s Alerts your narrow view of how the ADA works, and at least myself rebutted that discussion at that time by pointing out that there are well-established circumstances where more than one ADA provision applies. State government employees are covered under both Titles I and II of the ADA. Both the EEOC and DOJ have made clear that in cases where a business provides some type of service to employees on behalf of their employer, then both the business and the employer jointly and separately have obligations under Title I and III to make that service accessible to an employee with a disability. Deaf employees are entitled to use VRS, in addition to their employers’ obligations under Title I.
If we go down your conservative path, then when would VRS ever be legitimate except perhaps to call mom and dad? Applying your rationale, ultimately employers would be fully responsible for providing accommodations to their employees which means that all of their calls would have to be done through VRI. State governments would be fully responsible under Title II to provide accommodations to the exclusion of Title IV, therefore any and all of their constituents’ calls to them weould need to be VRI. Doctors, restaurants, hotels, educational institutions, and other places of public accommodations covered under Title III and therefore, according to your rationale, are fully obligated to provide accommodations to their deaf clients, patrons, students, patients, whomever and therefore must conduct all their calls using VRI.
This limited view of the ADA has no administrative, judicial or legislative basis, and makes no sense, unless there is a desire to severely undermine the language of the ADA in providing an accessible environment and the attendant equal opportunities for people with disabilities.
-Jeff Rosen
“To this point, no has been able to explain how vouchers would be funded. I mean, the states are broke, the FCC hates us, and if we charge the actual cost to the consumer, I just don’t think it will support a profit.”
Terpgirl,
The voucher would most likely be paid out the the same NECA fund that is currently funding VRS. Think about it. If Sorenson were just providing VRS services and no Videophones they could probably do it for around 4 dollars a minute instead of 6 dollars a minute. What are we going to do with that extra 2 dollars? Why not use those extra two dollars to fund the vouchers. Sorenson would still have the option of providing Videophones but they would have to do it under the Voucher System.
I realize that the current per minute rate is not supposed to support video equipment but like it or not it does. Not only is it funding videophones it is funding as many as 5 videophones per deaf person so it would most likely be cheaper to fund Videophones seperately from VRS services.
It is ridiculous that our current Videophones are being paid for at a per minute rate. There is no correlation in cost of VP maintainence and how many minutes one uses VRS.
Also, wouldn’t be nice to have someone like Logitech design a videophone for the deaf. Unfortunately this won’t happen because they have no interest in providing VRS services.
CNW-
My opinion? The FCC correctly framed the issue regarding provider involvement of remote training. This is within their regulatory powers. They wanted to kinow if VRS providers should be compensated on the per-minute reimbursement rate for remote training opportunities they sponsor. Thankfully, a lot of VRS provider’s petitions have confirmed that all such calls are non-compensable.
However, for remote training opportunities that are initiated by an employer or agency unaffiliated with a VRS provider, the picture is more cloudy. If the FCC wishes comment on this issue, I would suggest that remote training opportunities be interactive in nature in order for such VRS calls to be compensable.
Secondly, that all remote training, if offered, is offered to all employees or group, regardless of their hearing/speech disability. These employees can choose their communication method, be it the phone, a VRSCA, or a ip-based text relay agent, etc. Once these two criteria have been met, I’m reluctantly okay with the compensability of VRS calls involving remote training that is unaffiliated with a VRS provider.
I would still require that the FCC do periodic audits on calls flagged for remote training to monitor patterns of misuse and/or abuse of VRS services being ‘disguised’ as VRI calls. i.e., an employer will custom tailor a remote training opportunity just soley for the Deaf/HH employee, and maintain a regular training regimen for the rest of their employees, for example.
Understandably, I’m still not comfortable with the idea of using VRS for remote training opportunities. However, if these VRS calls were done properly and on an organic basis, I should have no problem with it.