All..
This one has a short window of opportunity to comment. 14 days for Section V – A, Section V – B and V -E5, then 21 days for all other issues; these public notices need to be first published in federal register before the 14 and 21 days take effect so little more time for anyone to comment. I would love to know why each different deadline dates for each sections? I am sure FCC has its own reasons for that.
FCC Statement
Basically, FCC wants to clarify and explore few issues. FCC wants to address whether reimbursable rates should apply for certain types of calls using VRS or not.
Before I go on and outline, I want to point out one interesting interpretation by the FCC that – frankly I find the statement somewhat offending.
"The statute and regulations provide that TRS users cannot be required to pay for the costs associated with relaying a call. Therefore, TRS users are not strictly "consumers" or purchasers of a service; rather they are the principal beneficiaries of a federal program that gives access to the telephone system."
Hey, that sounds like welfare. Does not meet the definition of ADA which Title IV (relay regulations) is part of. Anyway, this one I will have to chew on. Remember TTY relay service was based on using existing telephone network; VRS uses Internet (not unlike VoIP using Internet). Does that make difference, I think it does, but will discuss this particular issue at another time.
On declaratory ruling: FCC wants to "reiterate that Interstate TRS Fund payments may be suspended to providers that do not submit to audits."
That is what teeming masses who at least understands the basic budget will agree with the underlying idea that VRS providers should open their books to FCC/NECA. However, a few providers have problem sharing their full books with FCC. So it is gonna be interesting how FCC will enforce that. I support that, though, and know many of you do, too.
Order: adopt the interim rule "to make providers more accountable by requiring senior executives to certify compliance with our regulations under penalty of perjury."
Good rule, but I thought that was already done. I will have to chew on this as well. This interim rule, however, is NOT asking for comments, and basically said will enforce it without due process. "We adopt this interim rule without notice and comment, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B)."
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
A. VRS Call Centers outside of USA not allowed. This one makes sense.
B. VRS CAs working from home. Ah, this is a sticky issue for a couple VRS providers. I do not support the concept of VIs working from home; too many possible issues with that. Security measures are most effective in a call center instead of from home.
C. Basically FCC is outlining procedures on suspending or delay payments to a TRS provider if TRS provider failed to provide adequate verification. This is area where TRS providers will need to comment. Good one this one.
D. FCC is asking for comments on these type of calls.
- International calls
- Caller’s Face does not appear on screen; use of privacy screen or Idle calls. If VRS caller does not want to show his/her face, use TTY relay service is what I think.
- Calls that involve remote training. Ongoing discussion on this; should it be VRI, not VRS and the one providing remote service should pay for that? Same old argument where if Title I or II fails, then should Title IV take over, or go thru due process of complaining to DOJ which has historically not taken high priority on telecommunication issues that fall under DOJ.
E. Procedures in detecting and stopping the billings of illegitimate calls
1. Automated Record of the VRS calls. This one, to me, should already be in the rules based on existing telephone regulation, but guess good to emphasize that.
2. Data must be filed with the Fund Administrator to support payment claims. This also should already be in regulation, so guess one or few providers are not doing enough of that.
3. Requiring providers to submit info on new and existing call centers on a periodic basis. Very good!
4. This refers to white label company. Read this carefully. I believe there is other option for that.
5. Offer whistleblower protections for VRS CAs and employees of TRS providers. Very good and should be supported.
6. Transparency and the disclosure of provider financial and call data. This will be a sticky problem for a few VRS providers, however, I think that is needed to help FCC reach reasonable and balanced rates.
7. Provider Audits. Self explanatory by now…
8. Provider certification must meet criteria as listed or be subject to penalty of perjury.
As always, feel free to comment. This is an important notice from FCC.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Long Link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-88A1.doc
Recent Comments