Ed’s Telecom Alert

Good People,

The FCC has released a public notice announcing that the FCC has conditionally certified Convo for provision of VRS.   This is a GREAT news as Convo is a deaf-owned video relay service provider that is certified to provide VRS.  

I can tell you that this is because of tireless and hard teamwork from Convo employees and owners that made it possible.  There were lot of challenges as the FCC released number of Orders, Clarifications, and Rulings on what VRS providers should do.   Convo was able to follow the FCC rules to the letter because many people were involved and they kept track of items that need to be followed.   From legal, regulatory, technical, funding, and frequent visits to DC contributed to achieving the goal of being certified; truth be told, though, that it is following the FCC to the letter and not overlooking any commas, and periods that made it possible for Convo to get to where it is.  Check out the link:

Convo Certification

Quotable quote:

"..the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) hereby grants Convo’s application on a conditional basis, pending inspection of Convo’s facilities and confirmation of Convo’s compliance with all applicable rules and orders."

The FCC conditions are onsite visit by the FCC, and ensuring transition to fully certified VRS provider is done according to the VRS regulations.   

eyes wide open & thumbs way up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: 

Convo Certification: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1115/DA-11-1901A1.pdf

PS: This is an acknowledgement that I have ownership of Convo so take this post for what it is.  

Good People,

President Obama nominates two persons to be the FCC Commissioners.   

• Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel
  
• Republican Ajit Varadaraj Pai
  

WashPostTech Article

"..bringing relatively young but experienced telecom policy experts to an agency trying to redefine itself in the Internet age.  Both FCC nominees are well known for their experience on Capitol Hill and as legal advisors at the agency."

"Rosenworcel serves a a senior staffer to the Senate Commerce Committee. She has worked for the committee’s chairman, Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV.) since 2009 and has taken the lead on legislative proposal to bolster spectrum used by public safety and the private sector. She will replace current Democrat Michael J. Copps, whom she previously served as an advisor, as his tenure ends this year."  She replaces Copp.

"Pai is a partner in the litigation practice of law firm Jenner & Block. Previously, he served in the office of general counsel at the FCC for former chairman Kevin Martin. He has served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and property rights. He will fill an empty seat created when Republican Meredith Attwell Baker resigned to join Comcast last spring."

I hope both will be supportive of services to the people with disabilities.  Once the Congress approves these two, let's send them email with congrats to remind them that deaf/hh/speech-disablity/blind/deaf blind/wheelers appreciate them, let them know we exist, and expects them to know and understand underlying issues with people with disabilities. Their nominations will go before the Senate for confirmation and that could take less than a month.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: WashPost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/obama-names-democrats-rosenworcel-gops-pai-to-fcc/2011/10/31/gIQAKG5raM_blog.html

Good People,

Click to this link which focuses on Closed Captioning.

FCC Memo, Order, and NPRM

Highlights:

FCC reviews the application submitted by the TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, HLAA, AAPD, and CCASDHH for review of the FCC’s past order of granting closed captioning exemptions to various TV Networks. To get a historical review, here is a quote.

“From 1997, when the Commission first adopted its closed captioning rules, until mid- 2005, the Commission received fewer than 75 petitions for undue burden exemptions. From October 2005 through August 2006, the Commission received approximately 600 such petitions. CGB granted two of these petitions in the Anglers Order, and during the two weeks that followed, granted an additional 301 petitions in reliance on the reasoning of that Order.”

Consumer Organizations (the list of abbreviated organized above) challenged the Order by outlining several rationales.

Consumer Group challenged the FCC’s language of “..non-profit organizations that do not receive compensation from video programming distributors for airing . . . programming and [who] represent that they may terminate or substantially curtail their programming or curtail other activities important to their mission if they are required to caption.”

The Group disagreed with this: “..this standard is “unclear and unworkable” and creates an exempted class of programmers that is “impermissibly broad” in that it covers programmers who might in the future be able to provide captioning. They also claim that it is “unclear how the Commission [will] determine what activities are ‘important’ to a petitioner’s mission.”

Group argued against “blanket granting” for hundred of petitions with this: “They [Consumer Groups} further allege that the individual merits of each petition should have been considered, and that in many cases, petitioners had failed to produce evidence to support their claims of undue burden. They argue against the permanent exemptions granted, instead maintaining that temporary waivers “might have been more appropriate to the scenarios presented.”

The FCC ruled “..we reverse the 296 exemptions that were based on the rationale in the Anglers Order. Each of the petitioners affected by this MO&O shall be provided with a copy of this MO&O and notified, by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that it may file a new petition for a closed captioning exemption, consistent with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and the instant order.”

The FCC also rejected non-profit rationale for exemption of closed captioning. FCC rejected the rationale for exemption based on a departmental budget set aside by the network for CC, instead FCC will look at the strength of the whole company’s financial data.

Personal comment: what exasperates me is if these all of these TV programs are for public, then what are we, deaf/hh, to them? Non-public? The religious programs, are they not interested in saving the souls of deaf/hh? Are we collateral sinners that cost too much and that these programs are willing for deaf/hh to be sacrificed to hell?

At any rate, I applaud the FCC for reversing its past order to remedy an obviously discriminating order.

I may do one more post on the same order, but treatise of the post will be on “undue burden” and “economically burdensome”.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1021/FCC-11-159A1.pdf

Folks,

This is an interesting and vital information mainly for VRS providers, but impacts deaf/hh as well.  

FCC at beginning postulates that: "..we grant in part and deny in part the Sprint Petition, grant the Sorenson Petition, and deny the AT&T Petition.."

Here is the link:

FCC Responses

Sprint's request for "definition of employee":

"Sprint requests that the Commission clarify that CAs who are trained by the provider, who are stationed at the facilities of the provider and who are directly under the provider’s supervision should be deemed to be employees of the provider, in satisfaction of this requirement, regardless of whether or not they are hired directly by the provider."

Reason for that is: "..that VRS providers with de minimis market shares will need flexibility in the way they develop their CA workforce, including being able to obtain the services of CAs on a temporary basis or pursuant to a contract of short duration with an interpreting agency, and that such arrangements would be consistent with Commission requirements."

FCC responded: "We deny Sprint’s requested clarification." and this: "..we disagree with Sprint’s assertion that allowing applicants to obtain the services of CAs on a temporary, contractual basis, or pursuant to a contract of short duration with an interpreting agency, would be consistent with Commission requirements, given our consistent distinction between such workers and employees."

FCC's rationale is: "..we determined that it was necessary for eligible VRS providers to employ their own CAs (rather than contract out for CA services) to “ensure that certified providers exercise necessary oversight of their own operations and compliance with Commission rules,” and we further recognized that requiring that CAs be employed by each eligible VRS provider would “enable the Commission to better oversee the core operations of these providers.”"

Sprint also requested "roll-over VRS minutes" to other VRS providers.  FCC permitted that only if the VRS provider(s) themselves already have core call centers of their own that provide full service and only during emergency situations (hurricane, earthquake, etc).

Sprint's final clarification request on ACD (Automatic Call Distribution) platform that ACD platform need not to be on its own premises or use its own employees to manage it.   FCC granted that however reiterated that  "However, regardless of the location of the ACD, each provider is responsible for the oversight of all the core operations associated with such ACD platform, and shall be held accountable for compliance with all pertinent Commission rules and policies."

Sorenson Petition:  basically Sorenson maintains that required reports on call centers as cited by the FCC is overburdensome due to SVRS large size.   FCC agreed and modified that reporting will be limited to 5 call centers, but will ask VRS providers to keep copy of the lease arrangements on all call centers to be available in case the FCC chose to review them.

AT&T's petition for reconsideration:

".. AT&T generally seeks reconsideration of the requirements in the iTRS Certification Order that applicants for certification operate their own call centers and employ their own CAs.63 In addition, AT&T seeks reconsideration of the prohibition against VRS providers subcontracting these core VRS functions to another certified VRS provider." then followed up with its arguments.

FCC responded:"We were not persuaded by these arguments at that time, and we concluded in the iTRS Certification Order that requiring VRS providers to lease, license, or acquire and operate their own facilities and employ their own CAs would better ensure compliance with our rules and reduce fraud.68 We see no reason to revisit that conclusion here."

FNPRM (Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking):  Basically what the FCC opined on "Roll Over" issue above, and is asking public and companies for opinion on this.  Bottom line:  the proposed rulemaking is that VRS providers must own and operate call centers and that VRS providers have "core" call centers to handle all calls.  The exception is when there are disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc, can the VRS calls be passed on to another VRS providers.   FCC is asking for opinion from public on this.  

Now I wanted to comment that I love this.   A frank dialogue between the FCC and VRS providers.    I applaud AT&T, FCC SorensonVRS, and Sprint taking the initiative to clarify issues.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/727121-.-1-New-FCC-Certification-Order.pdf