Folks,
I think clarification is needed on VRS industry; that is, should or should not do regarding these phone-in situations; like on-line education, tele-seminars, getting information via phone, etc.
First of all I like what commentators Todd and Christian said in their comments. We have 5 Titles from ADA. Check out an abbreviated form on ADA
ADA Titles
Basically should consider these titles of ADA as a way to meet the federal expectations. Unfortunately, often a company or service is not willing to do make changes, then an alternative is offered. Like one commentator sez, if not able to get Title 1 thru 3 implemented, then only alternative is Title 4 which is relay service.
We know how difficult it is to get federal agencies to act on various issues and may take them years to resolve that. Deaf/hoh should not have to suffer because of that. So alternative is acceptable, but with following conditions for business ethics.
I do feel very strongly that it is not VRS providers’ place to advertise or promote these phone-in services either via website or emails or flyers. I feel strongly that in meeting functional equivalence, deaf/hoh – just like hearing persons – find these services on their own is the ideal way to go about it.
VRS providers who advertise/promote these phone-in services only have one thing in their minds – "ramp up" VRS minutes – in other words, manufactured minutes (I like that term, Todd). Same for those VRS providers who use domain whose sole purpose is to connect to phone-in services. Or those VRS providers who pay individuals to call these those phone-in service. Or VRS providers who pay various organizations to call VRS providers based on accumulation of VRS minutes.
However, those deaf/hoh who simply found phone-in services from newspaper or media news, and they did NOT get info from VRS providers or from Outreach Services who have contract with VRS providers, should be allowed. The exception, in my humble opinion, is classroom interpreting at Universities or Colleges – these I feel are verboten! Essentially because Universities/Colleges can afford them and FCC says no.
I talked with a few ethical VRS providers and I was pleased to learn that they practice that. They do not have any contract/behind the scene dealings/behind organizations/etc. to encourage phone-in services. So these VRS providers allow these phone-in services to be processed as these were "found" by deaf/hoh individual.
One additional issue. I’ve had a chance to talk with a few professional interpreters who work in VRS environment. They said "most" video interpreters do not like to interpret these phone-in services. Once a while, they said no problem, but on a daily basis they don’t like. Said they lose the motivation to stay with VRS industry. We deaf/hoh need to be sensitive to these video interpreters as well. After all, they’re symbiote to us deaf/hoh. We cannot live without each other.
Anyway, the botton line is simply that VRS minutes should be purely "consumer-driven" as chosen/determined by deaf/hoh only, not manufactured VRS minutes.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Recent Comments