Ed’s Telecom Alert

Folks..

As some of my close friends know, I have a lifetime dream to start a VRS business.  Over the years, I have had a few opportunites, but the timing was not right or the vibes did not vibrate.  

Until now, that is.   The vibes vibrated!  Out of respect for you great edsalert readers, I want to announce that three partners and I have teamed up and have formed a VRS provider; name of the company is Convo.  Who are the partners?  Wayne Betts, the famous movie maker; Chad Taylor, technical wizard, and Robin Horwitz, business savvy and go getter.  All of us are deaf. 

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

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…

GoAmerica (The Purple folks) submitted a petition to the FCC.   See the link

GA Petition

Basically GoAmerica is asking the FCC

[Quote] "..to amend its rules (1) to prohibit the practice of providing “white label” servicesby uncertified entities receiving compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund through certified providers,and (2) to require applicants for Internet-based TRS certification to demonstrate sufficient resources and capabilities to provide an Internet-based TRS service."  [Unquote]

You need to read this to get the full story, but according to GA, a VRS provider must generate 20K VRS minutes, sufficient capital at least for one year, and other requirements.   This petition also could mean that all these domain names that are not certified by the FCC, should not allowed to participate with existing certified VRS providers.  This may include all the organizations, clubs, deaf schools, alumni associations, etc. that had signed up with a VRS providers. 

Also, these small VRS providers who has contract agreement with VRS providers who do have certification. According to the GA petition, these small VRS providers may not be qualified if the GA’s petition is accepted by the FCC.  In other words, if these small VRS providers want to participate, they would need to use domain name that is certified as VRS providers, not theirs. 

Healinc Telecom Rebuttal

The above link is a rebuttal to GA’s petition.  Healinc basically says that the real reason GoAmerica submitted the petition was to kill off competitors and prevent genuine start ups.  Healinc indicated that many of established telecommunications service providers got their start by partnering up with existing telephone companies and ultimately were able to stand on their alone.  Worth reading.  

Healinc makes a few good points, but I also think the company went to the other extreme, though.

The following link is a Public Notice from the FCC. 

FCC PN

PN lists schedules on when to respond, etc.   Remember responding before 30 days carries LOT MORE weigh than if you submit comments after the 30 days; that would become "ex parte comment".   It still carries weigh, but not as much as if you had submitted within 30 days.

My Personal Opinion.

Yes, definitely we need to minimize the ‘fly-by-night" VRS providers who do nothing but use their own sales people, contract with telemarketers to use VRS, use classroom interpreting, etc. to ramp up VRS minutes and not focused on genuine consumers who need to make VRS calls. 

This kind of criteria by GoAmereica may block genuine deaf/hoh or honest and ethical start up VRS providers from going into VRS business. On other side, Healinc may allow these fly-by-night operator "easily" become part of VRS industry.  My opinion is that both GA and Healinc are at both end of extremes; that we need balanced regulation to certify VRS providers. 

What I think should be written down is to require a VRS center, have broadband and call center resources in place, show a capacity to follow TRS rules, and, finally – especially this one - that VRS provider focus on consumers for VRS minutes; in other words, be consumer driven as TRS regulation intended it all along.   That’s it.  

One additional thought for FCC: If Internet-based Relay Services follow rule of regular TTY relay service, then there is a 5 year periodic review by the FCC for re-certification of service.  Because VRS is such an explosive industry, I would suggest that when review period for re-certification comes up, FCC asks hard questions to the VRS providers to ensure that they are following regulations to the letter.  Maybe even shorten the 5 year to 3 year review just for the startups to ensure that they’re following regulations.  Once FCC satisfied, go back to 5 years? 

If you feel strongly about this issue, please do submit!  The instruction to do that is in the link FCC PN above.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

PS: BTW, the new FCC Chair has yet to be approved by the Senate.   So have not drafted promised sample of "congratulatory" letter yet.