Ed’s Telecom Alert

All..

An ex-parte letter from Minority Media and Telecommunications Council expressing concerns not unlike we deaf/hoh have. 

Minority Ex Parte

Quotable quotes:

"The Commission should ensure that net neutrality rules are neither written nor applied in a manner that adversely affects the participation of minorities online and in society."

"Permanent digital second-class citizenship is unacceptable on every level. The Commission must avoid the enormous social and moral costs that would attend the creation of a permanent digital underclass and consider the impact of its race-neutral policies on minorities."

So we’re not alone, and we have to fight to get our inherent rights.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Folks…

A friend of mine used the term, Organic Minutes and it really hit off what I’ve been trying to say all along.   This is also to follow up on a couple comments that asked about should this and that be permitted or not; what does the FCC regulation say? and so on.

Definition of organic: Free from chemical injections or additives, such as antibiotics or hormones: organic chicken. c. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.

This is clear enough.   I have organic vegetable garden now.  No  chemical solutions for herbicides, and pesticide are used.  Compost – healthy soil; for pesticide, I use hot pepper, insects and whip them into a solution and spray plants; for herbicide, I use my hands.  Result, healthy vegetable and delicious to boot and not have to worry about residues of sprays from chemicals used for pesticide and herbicide (Round-up, etc – horrors) affecting our health.

Same with Organic Minutes.   It means purely consumer driven minutes.  In other words, no telemarketers, no daily internal video conferences (by VRS staff), no online classroom or similar minutes are done.  This is how I view VRS industry ought to do; this is how I percieve TRS rules to mean.   TRS rules seem to be clear that any relay calls (text relay, Internet Relay, STS, VRS, and other horde features) should have two way participating parties thru relay agent/video interpreter.  In other words, both caller and called party should activately participate with each other.  So online classroom is out because this is not a true two way conversation.   The execption is answering machine and voice mails (it is in the relay rule).  Video conference calls are permitted, but it seems that a few VRS providers abuse that just to ramp up VRS minutes; not for the real reason why video conferences are held.      

Another important point to consider.  This is NOT about accessing various services available for hearing persons, this is about complying what existing federal relay rules (Title IV and subsequent Public Notices, Rule and Orders, etc from FCC) say what is permitted or what is not permitted.

So Organic Minutes means purely and clean relay calls between participating caller and called party.  Period.   I bet if VRS industry follows that, the total VRS minutes probably will be reduced maybe as much as 30% or more. 

I realize this is a very controversial issue.  I repeat, this is about what federal relay rules are about.   If you think online education should be permitted, address this with the FCC directly as FCC already said classroom interpreting is not permitted for VRS.  Same with other services that seem not to be permitted.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Folks.. 

This is just a speculative musing with a suggestion for the FCC.   

As the VRS industry grows, and we’re seeing VRS industry testing FCC on some uncharted areas of sales, marketing and telemarketing within VRS providers. The relay regulations, for most part, are ambiguous on what relay services can be used for.  The original relay regulations seem to imply that relay services (all of them) is intended for relay users only (individuals who have communicative disabilities), and not for the relay providers to use themselves to make money.    

A couple or so of the VRS providers seems to be taking advantage of the implied allowance of marketing and taking it to the extreme that these VRS providers are making money off the marketing by utilizing many deaf/HOH employees. These VRS providers to best of my assessment either make most money out of marketing or at least sizable percentage of overall profit, not from VRS users outside of VRS employment. Whether deaf/HOH staffs succeed in their works or not seem not to matter cuz they are building up VRS minutes. 

That, to me, seems questionable or maybe even unethical? Theoretically speaking VRS providers should make most profit out of VRS users utilizing VRS for their personal and personal business uses, not from using their own employees to ramp up VRS minutes. 

 On other hand, there are remarks from decision makers that encourage relay service providers to let public know of their services (outreach and marketing).  So what if a few or many of VRS employees are deaf and they need to use VRS to do marketing/outreach for VRS providers?

If FCC prevents VRS from doing telemarketing, then that is not fair to deaf/HOH who may lose the jobs working for VRS providers.  On other hand, allowing marketing opens the door for possible abuses by VRS providers.  

Looks like a catch-22 situation.  What to do? 

Generally speaking, people who work in sales, telemarketing or marketing have to earn their keep; in other words, their work has to produce results for their companies – make money or achieve objectives.  If not, they lose the job.  

With this underlying concept; I have one suggestion.  

If VRS providers use their own people or contract out to do sales, marketing, or telemarketing services, the deaf/HOH can use VRS. However, at the break-even cost, not at the regular reimbursement rates. Any VRS minutes from deaf/HOH staff incurred from within VRS providers or telemarketeers who specifically use VRS providers that they contracted with, VRS providers should submit VRS minutes to the FCC at break-even reimbursement rates – not at $6.64 per min, but at break-even rates whatever that might be.  

In other words, VRS providers will NOT make money out of using deaf/HOH based on VRS minutes only.   That means deaf/HOH persons would have to "earn" their keep by doing their work successfully.

This effectively will not discriminate against deaf/HOH working within or who may have contract with VRS providers doing marketing work.  At the same time VRS providers do not lose lot of money or earn obscene amounts by ramping up VRS minutes at regular reimbursement rates.  Deaf/HOH persons in sales, marketing, or telemarketing would have to "earn" their salaries by achieving objectives for VRS providers. 

This, to me, seems a win-win solution between VRS providers and FCC. 

I want to see VRS industry succeed in a clean and ethical way, not dictated by greed and at the same time provide job opportunities for deaf/HOH to do work in sales, marketing or telemarketing. 

Readers, let us know if you think this is fair or not. If not, your rationale being?  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

All..

This one is a bit long so I will not do a vlog on this one.  

There was a lively discussion at a listserve on government models of State TRS Request for Proposal versus "Free Enterprise" of Internet-enabled relay service (IP/VRS).  I would like to share some of my musings and see what y’all have to say since there are more of you now (836 subscribers now) - I’ve discussed this before. 

Before I belabor on all this, why am I bringing that up?   The 10 digit phone number that VRS/IP users will get end of December 31, 2009 – if not sooner – will make it possible to identify originating and terminating points of a relay call.  In the past, VRS/IP use Internet Protocol so it was not possible to identify the originating or terminating points if they are at the Internet end of it.  So there is no way to know if the Internet-based relay calls are within a state or out of state so federal took the full responsibility to pay for VRS/IP.  But because now the VRS/IP calls can be determined if from within state or out of state so that means the FCC can pass responsibility of paying VRS/IP providers on to states.  When will that happen? Who knows..maybe soon after the 10 digit phone number is up and running with all bugs fixed? 

Now what are these models?  

Model #1:  State TRS RFP means state releases request for proposal (RFP) and relay providers would submit their proposals.   The best proposal – not always necessarily the lowest price reimbursement – would be chosen by state; usually by regulator, or a advisory committee or selected persons to be part of RFP committee. Few states allow state telephone association by joint agreement among telephone companies select a relay provider.    

Model #2:  "Free Enterprise" of Internet-enabled relay service is done by pre-analyzed reimbursement rates based on the cost breakdown provided by states (using MARS account methodology) and any company can be relay provider providing they met the requirements to be relay provider.  Federal decides if vendors qualify or not.  

OK?  

Now first of all let’s not kid ourselves – both models are govt subsidized – and not paid by customers like most telephone users.  We do, however, pay as ratepayers or taxpayers (all of us including hearing persons who may or may not use the service) which in turn subsidize relay service in both models.   Telephone companies collect fees from us and then they in turn pay into a fund that pays for relay service; (model #1) states usually by state regulators (PUC, PSC, etc), and (model #2) federal by federal regulator (FCC).  Both states and federal basically adopts these financial arrangements.  

There is a federal relay law that requires ALL states provide relay service with exception of Internet-enabled relay services. In other words, VRS/IP are not "required", but permitted.  There are a few federal relay regulations that list rules of what relay service must comply including Internet-enabled relay service (with some exceptions of some items being waived) to be a relay provider.  VRS/IP relay service – even though not required – must adhere to relay regulations to be reimbursed by the federal fund. 

That said, let’s muse… 

At traditional relay service level, states typically choose one provider with exception of California.  On other hand, at the federal level, Internet-enabled relay services (IP and VRS), any company with enough capital can be part of the service as long as they meet certain specifications to be relay provider.   Multi-vendors are possible with Internet-enabled relay service while with states, typically only one relay provider is selected.   As you can see obvious difference between states and federal. 

At the federal mode #2, Interstate relay service (long distance calls made out of states) and Internet-enabled relay services only have to follow federal relay regulation and its bare minimum requirements.  States, on other hand, varies from state to state on what is required.   A few states merely adopt what federal relay regulation says; in other words minimum regulations.  However, most states write their own relay regulations that often surpass what federal relay regs require.   An example is Average Speed Answer (ASA – how many calls answered within specified time frame), many states chose the more stringent criteria of 3.3 ASA (average answer time shall not exceed 3.3 seconds) than what federal require which is 85/10 (85% of calls be answered within 10 seconds be answered).  States often ask for aggressive outreach to be part of the package.  Federal will subsidize only portion of marketing or outreach.   IP/VRS model #2 have to compete for customers and outreach is paid mostly by IP/VRS providers while state model #1 and its selected relay provider often partner up and do outreach projects together.    

Reimbursement rate from federal is based on – supposedly – the "average" reimbursement rates and costs collected from all states whereas reimbursement rates from states are based on the submitted reimbursement rate by relay providers (RFP process).   So smaller states – because of its low call volume – typically pays higher reimbursement rates whereas larger states typically pays lower reimbursement rates.   One important note: national reimbursement rate is based on ALL of bid price per minutes of each state and then reimbursement rate are averaged and calculated.  

Now you understand why if federal decide to pass subsidization responsibility of Internet-enabled relay services on to states, the reimbursement rates for states will likely be much higher and states will likely choose ONE provider rather than multiple providers to keep reimbursement rates low.  If states chose three providers in that state,it means the call volume for EACH provider will be 1/3 lower than state total thus the reimbursement rate likely will be higher.  Most state governments are frugal so they will opt for one provider because one call volume for one provider will get lower reimbursement rate.  

So we prefer to keep Internet-enabled relay service at federal level to make it possible to have choices of different IP or VRS providers.   However, it seems federal is determined to pass the subsidization responsibility on to states.    Is there a win-win solution to that?   I believe so, and I hope to share with you all what the win-win solution might be.  The idea I have is a proposal I believe VRS/IP providers, and deaf/hoh communities will find attractive, but not to federal agency and possibly a few state regulators as well. 

For now, any questions/comments on this so far?  I hope I am making sense of the difference between the two models.  Feel free to ask, agree, oppose, or offer alternative ideas.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

PS: Would you have preferred this to be Vlog even though it may be more than 10 minutes long?  Let me know your thoughts…