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.  

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

Folks..

SorensonVRS had challenged the FCC of various rulings and the Court rendered its decision.  Bottom line was that SorensonVRS challenged the FCC on 2010-2011 rates and offered rationales why.  

Court Decision

The court came out fairly strong and the language was blunt.   The document by the Court was fairly easy albeit bit long to follow as they were very clear on their positions.  Suggest you click and read.  Here are the highlights.

Cost issues: "Allowable costs include, for example, labor costs, directly attributable overhead, startup expenses, executive compensation, and an 11.25% fixed rate of return on investment."

Note that video products are not allowable cost as the following quote illustrate: "Disallowed costs include a profit mark-up on expenses, research and development costs for enhancements that exceed mandatory minimum requirements, and the cost of providing videophones, software, and technical assistance to VRS users." 

"According to Sorenson, the increased wait times that may result from the lower rates will compromise the functional equivalence required of VRS."

Court observed that:  "Notably, Sorenson does not claim that it will be unable to satisfy the mandatory 80/120 speed-of-answer requirement under the interim rates. Instead, it only claims that its average wait times may increase from ten seconds to twenty seconds."

 Court notes that: "This regulation [TRS] requires VRS providers to “answer 80% of all calls within 120 seconds.”

 Court concludes with:  "Even under Sorenson’s doomsday scenario, its increased wait times fall well-below the 120-second threshold set by the FCC for functional equivalence. Sorenson has failed to show the FCC’s interpretation of “functionally equivalent” is impermissible under the statute. Consequently, it has not established that the interim rates violate the functional equivalence requirement of § 225."

On Availability Mandate: "Sorenson argues the 2010 Order violates this availability mandate because the lower interim rates will undermine its ability to serve its current users and will prevent additional training and outreach to extend VRS to even more hearing and speech impaired individuals."

 Court responded? "We are not persuaded."

On Technology: "Sorenson claims the interim rates violate this provision because they do not compensate providers for the cost of customer equipment, such as videophones, which discourages the deployment of new technology."

Court responded: "Again, Sorenson’s argument fails to persuade us."   

Court reiterated: "As we have already discussed, providing free customer equipment was not an allowable cost for compensation from the TRS Fund even under earlier Orders."

"Just as users of traditional telephone service do not receive their telephones for free, § 225 does not require that VRS users receive free videophones."

SVRS claims:  "Sorenson also claims the 2010 Order is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. First, it argues the ratemaking method was irrational because NECA’s proposed rates are unreliable and were nevertheless averaged by the Commission with the prior rates. Second, it contends the tiered structure is irrational."

After a long treatise by the Court of how the FCC did its job well and concluded with "Moreover, the FCC is entitled to substantial deference when adopting interim rates."

Final conclusion by the Court:

"Because the 2010 Order’s interim rate plan for VRS neither violates 47 U.S.C. § 225 nor is an arbitrary and capricious exercise of the FCC’s authority, we DENY Sorenson’s petition for review."

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1018/DOC-310452A1.pdf

Folks,

An ongoing chronicle of certification procedure is coming to an end soon.  This post is long, but revealing!

First there is a certification procedure that dates way back to 1992.  When Internet Relay started (IP Relay and VRS), the FCC took hard look at the certification procedure and the FCC has made series of changes to the certification procedure.   I won't go into gritty detail on this, but do want to call your attention to two links and resulting decision as result of the Orders by the FCC.  It will show what is happening with those non-certified VRS providers.  

First this order:

May 31 Order

"We find good cause to stay the effective date of this rule because the Commission is undergoing a review of the certification requirements for IP-enabled TRS providers."

Basically that order mooted the waiver procedure which means the previous "new" rule now are no longer in effect because the FCC is reviewing certification procedure so the waivers that non-certification providers submitted are no good except for four providers that were asterisked (go to the exhibit on this link and you will see four providers with asterisk) along with LONG list of waiver requests.  It meant four asked more than one waiver so the FCC put these aside.  

If understood it right, all others that were not asterisked will not be certified. Basically the white label providers who had their waivers mooted, they did not come into compliance with other rules (the ones they did not ask for waiver on) so they failed in meeting compliance.  

Now yesterday's order was the decision making order.  

Denied 

Remember above four were asterisked, but three were denied the waiver requests.  

"In this Order, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), on delegated authority, denies three waiver requests filed separately by: (1) Deaf Link, Inc. (“Deaf Link”);1 (2) NorthStar Relay, LLC (“NorthStar”);2 and (3) ONE Technologies LLC (“ONE Technologies”)3 (collectively “Petitioners”)."

FCC stated: "..a waiver applicant “will have the burden of showing that the waiver is in the public interest, that grant of the waiver request will not undermine the purposes of the rules that we adopt today, and that it will come into compliance with those rules within a short period of time.”21 In addition, the Commission required each waiver applicant “to provide, in writing, a description of the specific requirement(s) for which it is seeking a waiver, along with documentation demonstrating the applicant’s plan and ability to come into compliance with all of these requirements (other than the certification requirement)” within three months after the rules become effective, and elaborated that “[e]vidence of the applicant’s plan and ability to come into compliance with the new rules shall include the applicant’s detailed plan for modifying its business structure and operations in order to meet the new requirements."

And this: "The Commission further specified that it would grant waivers “only after a rigorous showing that the applicant has workable plans and the ability to continue providing VRS in a manner that will not undermine the measures adopted in [the VRS Practices R&O] to eliminate the fraud and abuse that have plagued the VRS program.”

Wow.   The FCC obviously meant business.  Funny Zero!

NorthStar: I know many of you want to know who each providers are:   Here is one good quote on who is involved with NorthStar:

"NorthStar was formed on May 18, 2011 as a combination of the Communications Access Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CAC), CP&J Investments, LLC d/b/a PAH! Relay (PAH), Interpretel LLC (Interpretel), Sign Language Access, Inc., d/b/a CallVRS (CallVRS), and URrelay, Inc. (URrelay)."

DeafLink:  I was given to understand that DeafLink absorbed number of white label providers, but did not mention in this order. 

One Technology:  OneVRS

All these three non-certified providers were denied the waiver means they can no longer provide VRS; more specifically they were denied waiver between June 1st and Sept 1.  

The certification procedure is by no means over; there will likely be still changes and more rule/orders from the FCC.  How many non-certified providers (white label) ultimately will be certified, I can't say, but it will be low. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

May 31 Order: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021688064

Denied: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0913/DA-11-1542A1.pdf