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.  

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

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

Here is what VRS industry, deaf/hoh leaders, lawyers, and persons/companies wishing to go into VRS business have been waiting for: a new procedure for certifying companies wishing to become a certified VRS provider.  The FCC has taken on a route that, in their opinion, will eliminate frauds, abuses as well as eliminate fly-by night operators that just want to pump minutes and make quick buck.  

NewFCCProcedure

Here is the FCC's summarization of the new FCC certification procedure (from that link – see section 2):

"..we require all iTRS providers to obtain certification from the Commission in order to be eligible to receive compensation from the Fund;

• require all VRS applicants for Commission certification to lease, license or own, as well as operate, essential facilities associated with TRS call centers and to employ interpreters to staff those centers at the date of the application;
  
• and require each iTRS applicant for certification to submit specific types of documentary evidence of its ability to comply with all of the Commission’s rules, including those newly adopted in the VRS Practices R&O.
  
• In addition, we adopt rules governing on-site visits by Commission staff to the premises of applicants for certification, as well as to iTRS providers’ premises after they are certified.
  
• We also revise our rules governing annual compliance reports filed by certified providers, and substantive TRS program changes that must be reported to the Commission.
  
• Finally, we require prior approval for planned cessations of VRS service of 30 minutes or longer."

Bottom line is that it will not be easy to be certified by the FCC and it will be expensive to form a VRS provider. High investment that very well could approach minimum of 1 million dollars to make it possible to meet all the criteria to be certified.  Disclaimer, this is my guess.   We'll know more when the certification procedures take place and how companies will handle that.  

More of quotable quotes:

"..although VRS has proven to be extremely popular, this service has become vulnerable to fraud and abuse, which in turn has threatened its long-term sustainability."

"..In an effort to curb such illicit activities, and ensure that VRS remains a valuable communication tool for Americans who rely on this service for their daily communications, the Commission adopted a number of changes to the VRS program, some of which apply to all iTRS providers."

The following quote is an interesting one because many of white label VRS providers are already licensed as "interstate common carrier", and AT&T asked the FCC to exempt those VRS providers with Interstate Common Carrier status, and this quote is the response.

"..the certification requirement is a critical tool that is designed to help ensure the integrity of the iTRS programs, ensure that iTRS services conform to our rules, ensure that only qualified providers receive compensation from the Fund, and help combat waste, fraud and abuse. We will therefore not exempt interstate common carriers or any other class of providers from the iTRS certification requirement. Existing iTRS providers who are currently eligible for compensation from the Fund by virtue of their interstate common carrier status, and who seek to continue to receive compensation from the Fund, must apply for certification under the new process."

The following analysis focuses on the yellow highlight above.  The fact white label providers are licensed by state(s) as Interstate Common Carrier is not enough to be certified as VRS provider.  Not only this, if I understand the rule right, it meant even the certified VRS providers who got certified on the sole purpose of licensing of states as an interstate common carrier or similar labeling will need to re-apply for certification.  If my interpretation is right, that means ALL of certified providers will need to re-apply.  What we will likely see is flurry of VRS providers finding loopholes to circumvent this rule.  It will be interesting to see how the FCC will respond to these if any.   

The order did say only apply to iTRS ("i") which means only applies to certified providers who provide Internet Relay Service (IP and VRS).

I strongly suggest you read the criteria for becoming certified iTRS provider.    It will give you a much insight of what the FCC intends to do.   Bottom line, if you want to form a VRS provider, you gotta have lots of bucks to do it.   Won't be cheap.  You must have technology know how, and must understand regulations for TRS as well as the current new ones to fully understand how to become a VRS provider.   

That said, I would not be surprised to see less than ethical companies trying to find loopholes and stay in business.  I just hope that the oversight responsibility of the FCC will now be enough to prevent unsavory companies from becoming a provider. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long URL: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0728/FCC-11-118A1.pdf

Hearing on "FCC Process Reform" before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives.  Chair Genachowski gave a report on what the FCC has done on improving the FCC's infrastructure system.  

REPORT

One thing that caught my eyes was Chair's comment on VRS which is the below:

"We have also initiated a series of programmatic reforms to ensure efficiency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility. For example, our Video Relay Service program, which provides vital communications for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, suffered from significant instances of fraud and abuse. We have worked with the Department of Justice to prosecute wrongdoers and instituted other reforms to this program that have already saved taxpayers approximately $250 million."

hmm – I did not realize as result of minimizing fraud and abuse, saved approx $250 million.  FCC has many, many issues yet VRS was important enough to make it to the 5 page report.    

Rest of the report is standard reporting on various issues that the Chair has undertook to improve the FCC.   Worth reading?  Yes, if you are interested in what kind of changes the FCC has done.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

When the FCC released the order (a couple posts back on Edsalert), the FCC had in mind a way to minimize number of non-certified VRS providers down to manageable size.  However, there is a clause where it indicate those already providing VRS, but not certified may submit waiver if the non-certified providers show that they will be in compliance with the TRS regulations.    The deadline to submit that was May 31.  

Basically the order said:

"A company requesting a waiver of the rules adopted in this Order 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."

Okay.

A few non-certified providers including Convo submitted waiver reports to the FCC.  Quite a few of them.  

On May 31, the FCC releases a suspension of the Waiver clause and render the waiver requests as moot.  All the work that non-certified providers did are now "moot".  Ouch! It meant lot of times and funds spend on that may now go down the drain.  

The link below is about the suspension of the order.  

Suspension

The FCC's rationale is: 

"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."

and

"We anticipate releasing an order adopting a new certification process for Internet-based TRS services based on the record in the FNRPM within the stay period. Entities will be then given the opportunity to apply for certification prior to the expiration of the stay on October 1, 2011, in order to become eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund under the new process."

It does beg a question what will the non-certified providers do in the meantime?   Are there options?  Yes, a few but not to the best interest of non-certified providers themselves.  Perhaps that is what the FCC wants. 

Your thoughts, Readers?

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

• Require that VRS providers submit a statement describing the location and staffing of their call centers twice a year, and a notification at least 30 days prior to any change in the location of such centers;
• Prohibit VRS CAs from relaying calls from their homes and prohibit VRS providers from tying minutes or calls processed by a CA to compensation provided;
• Prohibit compensation for VRS calls that originate from IP addresses that indicate the individual initiating the call is located outside of the United States, with the exception of callers who pre- register with their default provider for a specified time and location of travel;
• Prohibit compensation for VRS calls for remote training when the service provider is involved in any way with such training (e.g., sponsors, promotes or hosts such training);
• Prohibit VRS CAs from using visual privacy screens, and requires that CAs terminate a VRS call, after providing a warning announcement, if either party to the call: (1) enables a privacy screen or similar feature for more than five minutes, or (2) is unresponsive or unengaged for more than five minutes, unless the call is to 9-1-1 or one of the parties is on hold;
• Require automated recordkeeping of TRS minutes submitted to the Fund;
• Require that VRS be offered to the public only in the name of the provider eligible for compensation from the Fund and, when sub-brands are used, that these identify such eligible provider; requires that calls to any brand or sub-brand of VRS be routed through a single URL address for that brand or sub-brand;
• Prohibit revenue sharing agreements for CA or call center functions between entities eligible for compensation from the Fund and non-eligible entities;
• Prohibit compensation on a per-minute basis for marketing and outreach costs performed through a subcontractor where such services utilize VRS;
• Adopt whistleblower protection rules for current and former employees and contractors of TRS providers;

The following is from NPRM:

Mainly on certification procedure. 

• Require that all Internet-based TRS providers be certified by the Commission to become eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund;
• Require new and renewing certification applicant providers to provide specific documentary evidence of their ability to comply with the TRS rules; The Commission may choose to conduct on-site visits as part of the certification process;
• Revise the provider’s annual report filings to the Commission to require further documentation that providers are in compliance with the Commission’s TRS rules;
• Clarify what types of changes trigger a provider’s obligation to notify the Commission that substantive changes in its TRS program have occurred;
• Require providers to seek approval from the Commission for voluntary interruption of their Internet-enabled relay service and to promptly notify the Commission after-the-fact when unforeseen service interruptions occur.
  

The following link is the full-blown description of the above; 69 pages long.

Order and FNPRM: http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0406/FCC-11-54A1.pdf

Long Link: https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/32111sorenson.pdf

There are several items for the Open Meeting on April 7, but what caught my eye was this one item.  
 

• Structure and Practices of Video Relay Service Program:  Report and Order will adopt rules to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in the provision of video relay service (“VRS”).  Also, a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to require all VRS providers to obtain certification from the FCC under new, tighter certification procedures in order to receive compensation from the TRS Fund.

The language on "Report and Order to adopt rules to detect and prevent fraud and abuse".   That’s simply GREAT and about time.  I am already visualizing a tall, sturdy Oak tree with strong branch, and noose hanging loose from the branch waiting for the guilty ones.  

This Open Meeting will be available for viewing via Internet.  "..

watch the live stream at www.fcc.gov/live.".  

Gentle Readers, this is one live stream I will be watching and you all should, too.   I hope it will be captioned, though.

Ed B