Karen Graham’s Thoughts on FCC VRS Regulations
10 10 2012Folks,
This is a thought-provoking comment by Karen Graham; check the link out.
Karen basically offered thoughts on new and much stricter VRS regulations and indicated who the victims may be as result of that.
I consider Karen a good friend even though we've not had the length of time to call it "old friend". Nevertheless, we have a mutual respect for each other. That said, I do have different perspective as compared to hers. I was fortunate for having worked in government in Texas for 20 years, and then as a co-owner of Convo that I have insight into both worlds.
First, let me cite quotable comments from Karen's article.
"The intent of the rule was to root out fraud and make VRS a more manageable industry for the federal government. Did their action lessen the probability of VRS companies acting in a fraudulent manner? Most importantly, are Deaf people receiving better service now than they were a year ago? How did the great VRS shake-up shake out?"
Good question!
Keep in mind Karen along with her partners owned Interpreting Service (SignOn) and did subcontract with a few VRS providers. As you all know the FCC regulations do not permit subcontracts.
"SignOn doesn’t exist in its original form any longer. In my case, I lost a livelihood. I’ve moved into a different field altogether and the days of monitoring the FCC announcements are a thing of the past."
"But some actors in this drama, like myself, were plumb out of luck – and out of work."
"One VRS provider who proceeded with certification suggested that the strictness of the rules was a challenge and perhaps limiting to efficient business operations. Requiring interpreters to be staff is often difficult in a freelance-oriented industry. Trying to discern the meaning of regulations, the increase in costs, and the impact on cash flow were some other concerns."
I acknowledge of "trying to discern the meaning of regulations.." as being tough one. The much new stricter regulations for VRS is indeed complicated. As a co-owner of a VRS provider, we've had to hire a lawyer who is very familiar with the FCC and VRS regulations to ensure that the company is in compliance with the FCC VRS regulations. I can readily tell you that it was one big reason why Convo became certified.
"Some interpreters, not liking elements of work with the bigger VRS companies (e.g. scheduling, strictness in operations) have left VRS altogether. Some of the interpreters, who had no intention of becoming freelance-only interpreters, were propelled into the freelance world by necessity. Others just needed this push to move on to full-time freelance work, something they had been considering anyway."
" In my view, interpreters felt that they followed the FCC guidelines prior to the rule change and that they were no more conscientious and ethical than they were before the change."
" It appears as if the shift in balance moved some of the more experienced interpreters back to community freelance work as their primary source of income. If so, how has that changed the quality of interpreting both in the community and in VRS?"
Finally these conclusions by Karen:
"In my opinion the changes haven’t necessarily helped."
"Perhaps the rule has eliminated fraud (has it?), which was its original intent, but many exemplary, law-abiding stakeholders became unintended victims."
All these are valid concerns and Karen has every right to pose her concerns.
My perspective is simple enough which is that it was not the FCC who created these stricter rules; it was the nefarious and greedy individuals who forced the FCC to create a much stricter set of VRS regulations. The frauds amounted to many millions of dollars and the FCC had to take action to prevent further pilfering of the federal funds.
Also, oversight by the FCC was impossible with 50 plus VRS providers, but now with only 6 VRS providers with "ownership" clearly defined, the FCC can be assured of quality oversight to ensure that VRS providers meet the rules. As matter of fact, the FCC recently did pay visit to all certified providers and examined their books, reviewed their interpreting training, and all that. That will assure that the VRS industry will be in compliance with the federal rules and prevent further frauds.
That said, I do admit that there are good and honest individuals and a few companies who are ethical got hurt by the stricter rules. My point is that it is not the fault of the FCC for that, it is the nefarious and greedy individuals that caused all the problems.
So what will the future be like? I think that down the future, there will be opportunities to improve the regulations as to be more fair, but that only will happen if the FCC is satisfied with the integrity of the VRS industry; that may take a while.
So tell me, Gentle Readers, what do you think? Do you think FCC did wrong or what? Let us know.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed Bosson
Long Link: http://www.streetleverage.com/2012/10/sign-language-interpreters-the-unintended-victims-of-vrs-regulation-change/
Do you think the FCC will "relax" their rules now that there are less VRS providers? Will it become easier for the current VRS providers to continue business, grow, etc?
I can't recall rules being "relaxed" after the wild geese have been caught.
Ed – Yes! I do consider you a good friend - Fortunate for me : )
Thank you so much for your thoughts – I agree as well that greed led to the fraudulent activities. You're right on the money. You're also right in that 6 companies are easier to oversee than 50. I do wonder from your readers if they've noticed any difference at all as consumers of VRS. Talk on!
Be well!
Larry,
Likely not cuz the FCC still fresh in its mind of past frauds; will take time for the FCC to relax. However, the VRS business by existing providers will continue to grow. The new ones, however, will be difficult this time around. Will require plenty funding, and knowledgeable and experienced people (including lawyers) to pull it off.
Karen, thanks for your comments. I, too, am curious how the Readers think.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
"the FCC had to take action to prevent further pilfering of the federal funds." Was it "federal funds" or funding from the telephone companies that was being stolen? I thought that it was the telephone companies that funded the relay services. I've been educating peers that the FCC estimates annual minutes for the fiscal year and develop a formula for the telephone companies to cover the costs of the VRS minutes. Money is then used to pay the VRS for the number of minutes provided. Am I misleading my contemporaries?
Got my doubts that things will change. The remaining six VRS companies are still companies out to make as much money as they can and some of their business practices, while probably legal and within FCC requirements, are hardly what I consider good and moral business practices. Making money is still the main goal and providing good service is secondary.
But, us Canucks, still wish we had your problems just as long as the VRS came with it!
Henry
Larry,
No, you are right. I think it is matter of semantics ;-] Telephone companies indirectly collects from telephone users, and then distribute the funds based on percentage to the TRS Fund of which the Federal has authority over and it is federal who decides which providers are reimbursed (of course, the FCC outscore the fund administrator to RLSA, but in the end federal makes the decision). Because the FCC (federal) has the final authority in TRS Funds, I call it federal funding.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Henry,
Making money is the goal, yes, but satisfying the customers is the primary goal simply because that is how one makes money. If customers are happy, then VRS provider makes money otherwise may lose them to other competing VRS providers.
Don't worry. I heard-tell that Canada may have VRS down in the future then y'all will have the same problem as we do ;-]
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
"Making money is the goal, yes, but satisfying the customers is the primary goal simply because that is how one makes money."
Yeah, that is the theory. That is how it was supposed to work with 50 VRS providers. That is how it is supposed to work now with 6. But that is not how it worked with 50 so it is doubtfull that it will now work that way with 6! Some of the VRS providers will still be out to get every last penny they can and unfortunately the VRS users do not feel empowered to switch users in response.
Up here in Canada CRTC has put VRS in the first two years of their 3 year plan so it looks like they ain't going to be in any hurry and there does not appear to be anything we can do to hurry them up! A big part of their caution is probably their wish to avoid the mess FCC allowed to develop in the USA.
Karen: Great article! (Thanks Ed for sharing it). We know your situation all too well, as we ran a vendor center in Minneapolis, up until the FCC rule change. We’ve stayed in the business, working as employees for the company we had had contracted interpreting services with… (They have been good to us.)
To answer your final question Ed, “Did the FCC do wrong?” : Well, not intentionally. Minute abuses had to be addressed, and the rule changes did give them more oversight, but in the process they removed some wonderful, ethical, value-adding interpreting companies (grin).