http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020394929

Check this out:

FCC Panel Meeting

"This conference will bring together government officials, consumers with disabilities, industry groups, and academics to discuss how to fulfill Congress’ vision that all Americans, including people with disabilities, share fully in the benefits of broadband."

Also this: "The conference will explore the role of innovation; the need for legal, policy, and regulatory changes; and the importance of collaborative problem-solving and open government processes."

Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 8:45 – 12:30 p.m.
Martin Luther King Jr., Library 901 G. St. NW Washington, DC
http://www.fcc.gov.live

I see that NAD will be part of this panel group discussion.  Rosaline Crawford, a lawyer representing NAD. will be there.

When I was relay administrator of Texas, and had five town hall meetings annually, one of the repeated comments I get from audience is lack of high speed broadband in rural areas for video conference calls and in south and far west Texas, affordability issues.   I hope this panel will address this very issue simply because many deaf/hoh now depend on VRS for many important issues and it goes to reason that these who live out in the boondocks likewise do as well. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296698A1.pdf

I guess I need to make habit of saying the following remark first.

Disclaimer:  I am owner of Edsalert, and I also am a co-founder of Convo so take this post for what it is.  

That aside. 

FCC just now released ruling on problematic issues.  

FCC Ruling

Quotable quotes:

"First, we emphasize that VRS calls made by or to a VRS provider’s employee, or the employee of a provider’s subcontractor, are not eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis from the Fund, but rather as business expenses."

At first glance, this seems to be reasonable; however, in analyzing this – maybe not.   If all VRS providers actually put in business expense of all the calls their employees made, it means NECA would need to recalculate the reimbursement rate and the rate will likely shoot up. 

Also, there are now several VRS providers who has mostly deaf employees and owned by deaf employees, does that mean they no longer can use VRS to make legitimate business calls?  For example, hearing persons in other VRS providers only pay from 1/2 cents to several cents per min while VRS provider pay full cost of video interpreter (lot more than 1.2 cents to a few cents).  Is that functionally equivalent?  

"..two categories of calls do not meet the definition of TRS or otherwise are not compensable from the Fund under plain statutory language: (1) VRS Voice Carry Over used to connect two hearing users and (2) VRS calls used to connect two users who are both outside the United States."

This one, I agree.   This is where a deaf person calls VRS and says will use VCO and once communication is connected to a hearing person – the deaf person lets his hearing friend or relative "take over" while deaf person just watch.   This is being done to avoid long distance calls.  Typically to another country.    That’s clearly cheating.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: 
http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/VRS-DR.doc
or
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-314A1.pdf 

Check the growth, but particular pay attention to 2008 and 2009 years.   Upwards then slowly downwards.   The end of Sept 2009, according to NECA website was 7,831,011

VRS Growth

Got from NECA’s reports the following:

Projection vs Actual meaning what NECA projected based on historical data and its best analysis.  

The percentage indicate projected data is close to what was projected or not.  

October 2009 (reimbursed on Dec 2009 to vendors)

IP Relay:  -12.2%     Projected  5,665,167 down to actual 4,975,801
VRS:        -18.0%     Projected 10,333,738 down to actual 8,468,606

November 2009 (reimbursed on Jan 2010 to vendors)

IP Relay:  -23.8%    Projected 5,472,814 down to actual 4,171,883
VRS:        -20.6%    Projected 9,890,288 down to actual 7,853,287

So it seems that by basing on historical data and NECA’s analysis are not the same as actual data. Why is NECA off?  Is it because NECA did not take into account or more likely this did not expect how much the activities of FBI, FCC, and illegal/unethical actions impacted the VRS growth?

The percentage looks like a large drop, but by looking at actual calls. we see that from Sept to November show almost same data.   However, by looking at the VRS growth, we see that on March 2009, there was 9 million minutes.  So VRS did drop from 9 million to Nov 2009’s 7.8 million.  That is approx 13.3% drop.  

Is VRS industry getting to stabilizing point?  I don’t think so. Your thoughts, Readers?

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:  http://www.edsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/VRSGROWTH-5.pdf

Long LInk:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Enforcement_Advisories/Welcome.html

Consumer Groups – National Assoc of the Deaf, Telecomm for the Deaf and HOH, Assoc of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Deaf HOH Consumer Advocacy Network, Calif Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf/HOH, Hearing Loss Associaiton of America, and America Assoc of the Deaf Blind – submits petition to the FCC.  Basically Petition is asking the FCC to issue a notice and comment rule-making proceeding on the matter of limiting or restricting certain types of Video Relay Service (VRS) calls such as conference calls, recording calls, etc.   

HURRAH!    

Looks as if the NECA and FCC are hammered from all sides now:   Consumers, VRS providers, and National Deaf/HOH groups on what all perceive to be not reasonable actions taken not to reimburse minutes of certain features.  Coming from this powerful groups have to have an impact on FCC.

Keep in mind that NECA is doing these actions under directives from FCC.  Keep in mind also, that the supporting FCC staff are issuing directives based on the 8th Floor’s decisions.  8Th Floor getting directives from (?) Congress or powerful lobbyist?   Or influenced by media?  Probably combination of several factors. 

To be sure FBI arrests, frauds, VRS providers looking for loopholes and all that created the situation.  However, I think pendulum went from one extreme side to the other extreme side.  FCC needs to find a balanced decision that is fair for all.  

Consumer Group Ex-Parte

Quotable quotes:

"..have learned that some VRS providers are either not connecting or may stop connecting certain types ofVRS calls because the National Exchange Carriers Association (NECA), the TRS Fund administrator, is withholding payment for certain types of calls."

"Not connecting certain types ofVRS calls is inconsistent with Section 64.604(a)(3) ofthe Commission’s rules, harms consumers, and is not functionally equivalent to the communication access that hearing telephone users enjoy.."

"Congress clearly expected that all types o f telecommunications services, using both existing and improved technologies, are to be made available to people with disabilities."

Consumer Group offered rationales which make sense as to why certain telephone features should be offered to the deaf/HOH.  Worth reading…

Check this link out:

NAD Comments

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed B

Long Link:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020383912

NAD:
http://www.nad.org/news/2010/1/fcc-actions-block-consumer-vrs-calls

An ex-parte letter from Minority Media and Telecommunications Council expressing concerns not unlike we deaf/hoh have. 

Minority Ex Parte

Quotable quotes:

"The Commission should ensure that net neutrality rules are neither written nor applied in a manner that adversely affects the participation of minorities online and in society."

"Permanent digital second-class citizenship is unacceptable on every level. The Commission must avoid the enormous social and moral costs that would attend the creation of a permanent digital underclass and consider the impact of its race-neutral policies on minorities."

So we’re not alone, and we have to fight to get our inherent rights.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Hopefully this will help give clarity to what the [bleep] is going on with problems of VRS industry and federal governments (mainly FCC, though).

Check this out…

ADA Explained

Title I covers employment.    

Does that mean companies/businesses who have deaf/hoh should pay for Interpreters to do conference calls?  The problem is most companies will not do that cuz it is expensive.  Cheaper to go through VRS.   Hence this dilemma VRS and federal agencies are having now.

Title II Part A covers public entities.  So does that mean webinars, podcasts, etc should be covered under this?   The problem is will these providers of webinars, podcasts, etc be willing to provide an interpreter for these?   Answer?  Likely not.

Title III covers private entitles.   Again lot of private telephone services are provided, should that fall under that title III?  Answer?  Likely not.   

Title IV covers telecommunications.   Well, it looks like to access telecommunications means to have access to everything that telecommunications offers.  So should all the above services indicated fall under this?    Several VRS providers seem to think so.   See Jeff Rosen’s comment recently on this very issue.    

So that’s the dilemma VRS and federal agencies (FCC, DOJ, etc) are having right now.  

These problematic issues have gone long enough.   I think – no, I know I speak for all of USA deaf/hoh citizen that we’re ready for stability so please please Decision Makers make decision very soon.   Remember that some of the VRS providers who "cheated" utilized "functional equivalence" as reasons why these services should be provided. 

Clearly VRS industry needs clarity of relay regulations so they can go ahead and provide the services as they should.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

long link:
www.adata.org/whatsada-structure.aspx

Along the same topic on non-reimbursable minutes.   Read on..

Four VRS Provider Ex Parte

CSDVRS Ex Parte

The underlying message is that the price of inaction may prove to be too great for most of VRS providers then ultimately VRS users suffer as result.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Links:
4 VRS
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020382451

CSDVRS Ex Parte
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020355243