http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394929

I guess I need to make habit of saying the following remark first.

Disclaimer:  I am owner of Edsalert, and I also am a co-founder of Convo so take this post for what it is.  

That aside. 

FCC just now released ruling on problematic issues.  

FCC Ruling

Quotable quotes:

"First, we emphasize that VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s employee, or the employee of a provider’s subcontractor, are not eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis from the Fund, but rather as business expenses."

At first glance, this seems to be reasonable; however, in analyzing this – maybe not.   If all VRS providers actually put in business expense of all the calls their employees made, it means NECA would need to recalculate the reimbursement rate and the rate will likely shoot up. 

Also, there are now several VRS providers who has mostly deaf employees and owned by deaf employees, does that mean they no longer can use VRS to make legitimate business calls?  For example, hearing persons in other VRS providers only pay from 1/2 cents to several cents per min while VRS provider pay full cost of video interpreter (lot more than 1.2 cents to a few cents).  Is that functionally equivalent?  

"..two categories of calls do not meet the definition of TRS or otherwise are not compensable from the Fund under plain statutory language: (1) VRS Voice Carry Over used to connect two hearing users and (2) VRS calls used to connect two users who are both outside the United States."

This one, I agree.   This is where a deaf person calls VRS and says will use VCO and once communication is connected to a hearing person – the deaf person lets his hearing friend or relative "take over" while deaf person just watch.   This is being done to avoid long distance calls.  Typically to another country.    That’s clearly cheating.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: 
http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/VRS-DR.doc
or
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-314A1.pdf 

Long LInk:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Enforcement_Advisories/Welcome.html

Consumer Groups – National Assoc of the Deaf, Telecomm for the Deaf and HOH, Assoc of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Deaf HOH Consumer Advocacy Network, Calif Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf/HOH, Hearing Loss Associaiton of America, and America Assoc of the Deaf Blind – submits petition to the FCC.  Basically Petition is asking the FCC to issue a notice and comment rule-making proceeding on the matter of limiting or restricting certain types of Video Relay Service (VRS) calls such as conference calls, recording calls, etc.   

HURRAH!    

Looks as if the NECA and FCC are hammered from all sides now:   Consumers, VRS providers, and National Deaf/HOH groups on what all perceive to be not reasonable actions taken not to reimburse minutes of certain features.  Coming from this powerful groups have to have an impact on FCC.

Keep in mind that NECA is doing these actions under directives from FCC.  Keep in mind also, that the supporting FCC staff are issuing directives based on the 8th Floor’s decisions.  8Th Floor getting directives from (?) Congress or powerful lobbyist?   Or influenced by media?  Probably combination of several factors. 

To be sure FBI arrests, frauds, VRS providers looking for loopholes and all that created the situation.  However, I think pendulum went from one extreme side to the other extreme side.  FCC needs to find a balanced decision that is fair for all.  

Consumer Group Ex-Parte

Quotable quotes:

"..have learned that some VRS providers are either not connecting or may stop connecting certain types ofVRS calls because the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), the TRS Fund administrator, is withholding payment for certain types of calls."

"Not connecting certain types ofVRS calls is inconsistent with Section 64.604(a)(3) ofthe Commission’s rules, harms consumers, and is not functionally equivalent to the communication access that hearing telephone users enjoy.."

"Congress clearly expected that all types o f telecommunications services, using both existing and improved technologies, are to be made available to people with disabilities."

Consumer Group offered rationales which make sense as to why certain telephone features should be offered to the deaf/HOH.  Worth reading…

Check this link out:

NAD Comments

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020383912

NAD:
http://www.nad.org/news/2010/1/fcc-actions-block-consumer-vrs-calls

Along the same topic on non-reimbursable minutes.   Read on..

Four VRS Provider Ex Parte

CSDVRS Ex Parte

The underlying message is that the price of inaction may prove to be too great for most of VRS providers then ultimately VRS users suffer as result.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Links:
4 VRS
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020382451

CSDVRS Ex Parte
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355243

• conference calls between deaf/hoh (those who do NOT work for VRS providers) and hearing persons
• Customer support services  (for pagers, cell phones, etc from ATT, Sprint, Verizon, etc)

These two, in my opinion, are legitimate calls.   Conference calls by non-VRS employees  – just regular deaf/hoh to hearing persons should be permitted, not forbidden.  

Remember FCC will typically do not act on issues unless enough deaf/hoh complains. So complain away…

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

long link:
https://esupport.fcc.gov/sform2000/formC!input.action?form_page=2000C

This one is an interesting letter addressed to selected powerful congress people. 

NAURC is the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; in other words, Public Utility Commission, Public Service Commission, and any state regulatory agencies that overlook telephone, electricity and other utilities.  Not all states agree with NARUC’s philosophy, but apparently by majority do, though.

Essentially the letter does not want Internet to become federal Jurisdiction, instead that states have jurisdiction and states reasons why.  

NARUC Letter

Here are quotable quotes:

"..our strong opposition to a recent letter from discrete industry interests seeking “legislation affirming that all Internet Protocol (“IP”)-based services are subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction."

"The requested law eliminates State consumer, market, and infrastructure protections. On its face, it is anti-consumer, overbroad, biased to benefit one technology, and, if enacted, will undermine competition and likely result in other unanticipated and unfortunate consequences."

"Your State regulators know problem areas and have keen insights about communications markets and the impact of federal legislation in your State."

"..the federal government will always lack the human and fiscal resources to handle ALL customer complaints and concerns from across the U.S. State commissions handle thousands of consumer complaints every year, and generally provide individual relief in a matter of weeks.."

There are more quotable quotes, so please click and read on. 

I have this to say.  A big "however".   However, the concept will not work with subsidized relay services (VRS, TRS, and IP) because states are likely to use RFP to choose one provider instead of allowing ALL providers compete.  This letter really is about states taking over jurisdiction of IP services – but here is the key, ALL of IP services as opposed to one.    States are able to do that and allow competition among providers; unfortunately, States are not able to do same thing for subsidized services like TRS, VRS, and IP (so far only California has that, and even then still limited).

So I am opposed to what NARUC wants and I understand many of you feel the same way as well. 

I have nothing but high respect for NAURC.  As I worked for a state regulatory agency for 19 years and have given a presentation at a NAURC convention. That said, I do not think mover and shakers of NAURC fully understands TRS issues, subsidized services, and the nature of competition among subsidized TRS service providers.

The last quote in this edsalert, unfortunately, is true.  It does take federal agency a long time to resolve issues – often years.   One of the exciting possibility for 2010 is a couple of congressmen are considering strengthening FCC and its oversight over TRS by giving more funds to these departments. 

We must never lose the sight that to make a service nationwide, the only way to do that is create a federal law that requires that.  There never has been a service that states provide without a mandated federal law; a few actually did, but not all states so it requires federal law to require ALL states to provide relay service.   TRS and closed captioning are classic examples of that.

This NARUC letter’s opposition to federal jurisdiction may remove that and we cannot allow that.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link:
http://www.naruc.org/Testimony/10%20%200106%20NARUC%20IP%20preemtion%20response%20%20ltr.pdf

Captioned Telephony and VRS are one of the few features left that are not "required" by the TRS regulation.  

The FCC Consumer Advisory Committee has released a recommendation that Captioned Telephony be required so all states will have to comply and provide this valuable service for hard of hearing persons.  

If my memory serves me right, one of the reason why it has not been mandated yet is because it is a monopoly service and owned only by one company.  Does that rationale still hold true, or has the importance of captioned telephone service outweigh the patent issue?    Will be interesting to see how FCC responds.

FCC CAC Recommendation

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Long link:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2009/db1208/DOC-295070A1.pdf

I see a few comments and emails here and there that basically said where are comments from groups of interpreters?

Well..got this intriguing ex-parte presentation from a group of video interpreters with the name of "Video Interpreters United".

Quote: "Most of the members of VIU are Communications Assistants i.e. Video Interpreters (“VIs”). As VIs, we have experienced and witnessed many variations of potentially if not abusive and fraudulent VRS practices perpetrated mainly by the providers of VRS and their business associates."

About 11 pages long.  

VIU Ex-Parte Presentations

Quotables below..

"..the Commission continues to specifically restrict conference calls that do not involve hearing people from being compensable by the Fund; and instead maintain a Multipoint Control Unit (“MCU”) within the unified platform;"

Translation: multiple-persons video conference should be between hearing person(s) and deaf/hoh persons, and that VRS should offer multiple video conference program within VRS platform. 

This next quote is an interesting perspective from VIU.  What below means is that hearing persons should pay for fees to use VRS-related video phones. 

"..that in order to offset costs associated with the provision of VRS-related products and services, providers charge subscription fees to customers for point-to-point calls similarly to what users of non-relay services pay to access the telephone network;"

My reaction this next quote is "hmmmm??"

"..that the Commission compensate providers a flat rate of usage amount rather than a per minute rate of usage based on the device used to access the unified platform for VRS purposes;"

The following statement was strong in its criticism of a certain VRS provider.

"..VI’s including those working for Sorenson are currently compelled to tolerate unhealthy working conditions that not only threaten our physical, mental, and emotional well-being, but also hamper our ability to exercise authority and autonomy in the industry as professionals providing sign language interpretations over video relay.."

Equally interesting is the following statements – I don’t know if this is realistic, though:

"..VIU recommends the creation of a national VRS platform for all providers’ networks that does not impede transparent interoperability between provider networks.."

Strongly suggest you read the ex-parte presentation carefully.   After you read this, I know lot of subscribers of edsalert are also interpreters.  So both deaf/hoh and interpreters please comment away.  As always be civil in your comments.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353122

Basically, CSDVRS and other VRS providers are saying that to port (change) phone number from original VRS provider to a new VRS provider by using the same video phone is not possible due to "infeasible" reasons. Several other VRS providers agree with CSDVRS on that: Viable, Sprint-Relay, SnapVRS and Purple. 

If my addled memory serves me right, SorensonVRS said VP can be ported, but will eliminate all the features of Sorenson’s VP.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020353228