Ed’s Telecom Alert

Folks..

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

Hi Dear Friends,

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

Folks, 

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

People,

• 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