Ed’s Telecom Alert

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.

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…

I imagine many of you are wondering about portability issue regarding LN from VRS provider and VP from VRS.  Are both "portable"?  If you remember my past vlogs, right now  because of technology issues only LN is portable, not the equipment.  What does that mean?  It means you can’t port equipment to a different VRS provider.  For example, if you have – oh say – VP 200, and you like SnapVRS, you can port your LN to SnapVRS, but you cannot port VP-200 to use SnapVRS services.  

A big "but but" doesn’t Number Order require BOTH LN and Equipment be portable?  Order stipulates that, yes.  Is that a good idea?  Personally, I don’t think so.   We all know that if VRS providers are required to do that, you will lose the original features.   

CSDVRS Suggestion

CSDVRS suggests another approach which is for FCC to:

"Eliminate requirement for CPE to operate on another VRS provider’s network when the user ports his or number to a new default provider."

What this means, port only number, not the equipment to a new VRS provider of your choice.  Rationale: increase incentive for VRS provider to stay in the game and improve their features (if forced to port equipment, they may stop doing research and development for new features or worst still may abandon VP altogether), functional equivalent to VoIP and Cell phone industries (have to give up equipment to get a new equipment if you change to a new service), and other what seems to me justifable rationales.

Click and see what you think.  Let us know..

Remember this is not a rule making proposal – at least not yet.  CSDVRS will need to submit a rulemaking request to modify existing Number Order on this if the company wants to pursue it further.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

All..

Finally Obama selects a person to be the Federal Communication Commission Chair, and he is Julius Genachowski – easy to memorize the name, go like this: GENA CHOW SKI.   Here are several links to the articles:

CNET Article

CNET article focuses on Genachowski as strong advocate of Net Neutrality which in my humble opinion is a good thing.  

Info Week Article

Info Week article said that was the worst kept secret that was finally confirmed by Obama’s announcement.  Article mentioned Genachowski did a legal work for Reed Hundt (for those of who shot up balloon of question on Hundt, he used to be FCC Chair and was a strong supporter of persons with disabilities).

WJ Article

WJ article mentioned that Genachowski did fund raising event and raised $500K and was the top technology advisor to Obama during campaign event. 

I can safely say that I KNOW that deaf leaders in DC area will endeavor to have a meeting with Genachowski as soon as possible to get their congrats and try to get Genachowski’s support for persons with communicative challenges in the telecommunications world. 

What happens next is for the Senate to confirm him.  It seems very good chance of that.  

Important: Once Genachowski starts working for FCC, I urge you all to send him a congratulatory email or letter and be sure to let him know you’re deaf, hoh, speech disability, or whatever disability you have so he will know there are people with disabilities watching him closely.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed