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Basically that order mooted the waiver procedure which means the previous "new" rule now are no longer in effect because the FCC is reviewing certification procedure so the waivers that non-certification providers submitted are no good except for four providers that were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
Recent Comments