Ed’s Telecom Alert

Good People,

Click to this link which focuses on Closed Captioning.

FCC Memo, Order, and NPRM

Highlights:

FCC reviews the application submitted by the TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, HLAA, AAPD, and CCASDHH for review of the FCC’s past order of granting closed captioning exemptions to various TV Networks. To get a historical review, here is a quote.

“From 1997, when the Commission first adopted its closed captioning rules, until mid- 2005, the Commission received fewer than 75 petitions for undue burden exemptions. From October 2005 through August 2006, the Commission received approximately 600 such petitions. CGB granted two of these petitions in the Anglers Order, and during the two weeks that followed, granted an additional 301 petitions in reliance on the reasoning of that Order.”

Consumer Organizations (the list of abbreviated organized above) challenged the Order by outlining several rationales.

Consumer Group challenged the FCC’s language of “..non-profit organizations that do not receive compensation from video programming distributors for airing . . . programming and [who] represent that they may terminate or substantially curtail their programming or curtail other activities important to their mission if they are required to caption.”

The Group disagreed with this: “..this standard is “unclear and unworkable” and creates an exempted class of programmers that is “impermissibly broad” in that it covers programmers who might in the future be able to provide captioning. They also claim that it is “unclear how the Commission [will] determine what activities are ‘important’ to a petitioner’s mission.”

Group argued against “blanket granting” for hundred of petitions with this: “They [Consumer Groups} further allege that the individual merits of each petition should have been considered, and that in many cases, petitioners had failed to produce evidence to support their claims of undue burden. They argue against the permanent exemptions granted, instead maintaining that temporary waivers “might have been more appropriate to the scenarios presented.”

The FCC ruled “..we reverse the 296 exemptions that were based on the rationale in the Anglers Order. Each of the petitioners affected by this MO&O shall be provided with a copy of this MO&O and notified, by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that it may file a new petition for a closed captioning exemption, consistent with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and the instant order.”

The FCC also rejected non-profit rationale for exemption of closed captioning. FCC rejected the rationale for exemption based on a departmental budget set aside by the network for CC, instead FCC will look at the strength of the whole company’s financial data.

Personal comment: what exasperates me is if these all of these TV programs are for public, then what are we, deaf/hh, to them? Non-public? The religious programs, are they not interested in saving the souls of deaf/hh? Are we collateral sinners that cost too much and that these programs are willing for deaf/hh to be sacrificed to hell?

At any rate, I applaud the FCC for reversing its past order to remedy an obviously discriminating order.

I may do one more post on the same order, but treatise of the post will be on “undue burden” and “economically burdensome”.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1021/FCC-11-159A1.pdf

Folks,

This is an interesting and vital information mainly for VRS providers, but impacts deaf/hh as well.  

FCC at beginning postulates that: "..we grant in part and deny in part the Sprint Petition, grant the Sorenson Petition, and deny the AT&T Petition.."

Here is the link:

FCC Responses

Sprint's request for "definition of employee":

"Sprint requests that the Commission clarify that CAs who are trained by the provider, who are stationed at the facilities of the provider and who are directly under the provider’s supervision should be deemed to be employees of the provider, in satisfaction of this requirement, regardless of whether or not they are hired directly by the provider."

Reason for that is: "..that VRS providers with de minimis market shares will need flexibility in the way they develop their CA workforce, including being able to obtain the services of CAs on a temporary basis or pursuant to a contract of short duration with an interpreting agency, and that such arrangements would be consistent with Commission requirements."

FCC responded: "We deny Sprint’s requested clarification." and this: "..we disagree with Sprint’s assertion that allowing applicants to obtain the services of CAs on a temporary, contractual basis, or pursuant to a contract of short duration with an interpreting agency, would be consistent with Commission requirements, given our consistent distinction between such workers and employees."

FCC's rationale is: "..we determined that it was necessary for eligible VRS providers to employ their own CAs (rather than contract out for CA services) to “ensure that certified providers exercise necessary oversight of their own operations and compliance with Commission rules,” and we further recognized that requiring that CAs be employed by each eligible VRS provider would “enable the Commission to better oversee the core operations of these providers.”"

Sprint also requested "roll-over VRS minutes" to other VRS providers.  FCC permitted that only if the VRS provider(s) themselves already have core call centers of their own that provide full service and only during emergency situations (hurricane, earthquake, etc).

Sprint's final clarification request on ACD (Automatic Call Distribution) platform that ACD platform need not to be on its own premises or use its own employees to manage it.   FCC granted that however reiterated that  "However, regardless of the location of the ACD, each provider is responsible for the oversight of all the core operations associated with such ACD platform, and shall be held accountable for compliance with all pertinent Commission rules and policies."

Sorenson Petition:  basically Sorenson maintains that required reports on call centers as cited by the FCC is overburdensome due to SVRS large size.   FCC agreed and modified that reporting will be limited to 5 call centers, but will ask VRS providers to keep copy of the lease arrangements on all call centers to be available in case the FCC chose to review them.

AT&T's petition for reconsideration:

".. AT&T generally seeks reconsideration of the requirements in the iTRS Certification Order that applicants for certification operate their own call centers and employ their own CAs.63 In addition, AT&T seeks reconsideration of the prohibition against VRS providers subcontracting these core VRS functions to another certified VRS provider." then followed up with its arguments.

FCC responded:"We were not persuaded by these arguments at that time, and we concluded in the iTRS Certification Order that requiring VRS providers to lease, license, or acquire and operate their own facilities and employ their own CAs would better ensure compliance with our rules and reduce fraud.68 We see no reason to revisit that conclusion here."

FNPRM (Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking):  Basically what the FCC opined on "Roll Over" issue above, and is asking public and companies for opinion on this.  Bottom line:  the proposed rulemaking is that VRS providers must own and operate call centers and that VRS providers have "core" call centers to handle all calls.  The exception is when there are disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc, can the VRS calls be passed on to another VRS providers.   FCC is asking for opinion from public on this.  

Now I wanted to comment that I love this.   A frank dialogue between the FCC and VRS providers.    I applaud AT&T, FCC SorensonVRS, and Sprint taking the initiative to clarify issues.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/727121-.-1-New-FCC-Certification-Order.pdf

Folks..

SorensonVRS had challenged the FCC of various rulings and the Court rendered its decision.  Bottom line was that SorensonVRS challenged the FCC on 2010-2011 rates and offered rationales why.  

Court Decision

The court came out fairly strong and the language was blunt.   The document by the Court was fairly easy albeit bit long to follow as they were very clear on their positions.  Suggest you click and read.  Here are the highlights.

Cost issues: "Allowable costs include, for example, labor costs, directly attributable overhead, startup expenses, executive compensation, and an 11.25% fixed rate of return on investment."

Note that video products are not allowable cost as the following quote illustrate: "Disallowed costs include a profit mark-up on expenses, research and development costs for enhancements that exceed mandatory minimum requirements, and the cost of providing videophones, software, and technical assistance to VRS users." 

"According to Sorenson, the increased wait times that may result from the lower rates will compromise the functional equivalence required of VRS."

Court observed that:  "Notably, Sorenson does not claim that it will be unable to satisfy the mandatory 80/120 speed-of-answer requirement under the interim rates. Instead, it only claims that its average wait times may increase from ten seconds to twenty seconds."

 Court notes that: "This regulation [TRS] requires VRS providers to “answer 80% of all calls within 120 seconds.”

 Court concludes with:  "Even under Sorenson’s doomsday scenario, its increased wait times fall well-below the 120-second threshold set by the FCC for functional equivalence. Sorenson has failed to show the FCC’s interpretation of “functionally equivalent” is impermissible under the statute. Consequently, it has not established that the interim rates violate the functional equivalence requirement of § 225."

On Availability Mandate: "Sorenson argues the 2010 Order violates this availability mandate because the lower interim rates will undermine its ability to serve its current users and will prevent additional training and outreach to extend VRS to even more hearing and speech impaired individuals."

 Court responded? "We are not persuaded."

On Technology: "Sorenson claims the interim rates violate this provision because they do not compensate providers for the cost of customer equipment, such as videophones, which discourages the deployment of new technology."

Court responded: "Again, Sorenson’s argument fails to persuade us."   

Court reiterated: "As we have already discussed, providing free customer equipment was not an allowable cost for compensation from the TRS Fund even under earlier Orders."

"Just as users of traditional telephone service do not receive their telephones for free, § 225 does not require that VRS users receive free videophones."

SVRS claims:  "Sorenson also claims the 2010 Order is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. First, it argues the ratemaking method was irrational because NECA’s proposed rates are unreliable and were nevertheless averaged by the Commission with the prior rates. Second, it contends the tiered structure is irrational."

After a long treatise by the Court of how the FCC did its job well and concluded with "Moreover, the FCC is entitled to substantial deference when adopting interim rates."

Final conclusion by the Court:

"Because the 2010 Order’s interim rate plan for VRS neither violates 47 U.S.C. § 225 nor is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the FCC’s authority, we DENY Sorenson’s petition for review."

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1018/DOC-310452A1.pdf

Folks..

Check this link out

$201K Bill

Quotable quotes:

"A South Florida woman got the shock of her life when she opened a recent cell phone bill: she owed $201,000"

"Celina Aarons has her two deaf-mute brothers on her plan. They communicate by texting and use their phones to watch videos.  Normally, that's not a problem. Aarons has the appropriate data plan and her bill is about $175. "

"But her brothers spent two weeks in Canada and Aarons never changed to an international plan. Her brothers sent over 2,000 texts and also downloaded videos, sometimes racking up $2,000 in data charges."

"T-Mobile told Aarons the bill was correct. She called Miami TV station WSVN, which contacted T-Mobile. The station reports that T-Mobile cut Aarons' bill to $2,500 and gave her six months to pay."

My position is that T-Mobile has the responsibility to notify and warn the user that cost exceeded $175; and ask "continue?".  Nice of T-Mobile to reduce to $2,500, but it is still way too high for not having forewarned the users.  It is T-Mobile's blasted fault as I see it.   The users should have known better, but since telephone companies serve the people, they need to be sensitive to their needs, I believe.   

Curious: do you agree with me or is it "just too bad"?      

"Deaf-mute" – geez, in this day and age, some media have not learned the politically correct labels.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/south-florida-woman-gets-201000-cell-phone-bill/1197329