FCC's Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) will provide mobile solutions exhibition on text to 9-1-1 on March 28 & 29, 2012.

Exhibition

The Exhibition Fair will be displayed in the Commission's Technology Experience Center, Room TW-B505, located at the Commission's HQ at 445 12th Street, SW in Washington DC.

The Twenty-First Century Communications andVideo Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) was created and one of items from that was creation of EAAC, and the purpose of EAAC is "..to determine the most effective and efficient technologies and methods by which to enable access to Next Generation (NG911) emergency services by individuals with disabilities and to make recommendations to the Commission on how to achieve those effective and efficienttechnolgies and methods".  

That was because the disability groups have been clamoring for a better mousetrap in getting hold of emergency dispatchers.   Kudos to noisy rabble-rousers (I meant it as a compliment, not insult).  

If you have wherewithal to attend this, do so!   Undoubtedly mover and shakers of national organizations representing disabilities will attend this (they should). 

EAAC did a survey on disabilities a while back and if my addled memory serves me right, was published here once before.  I will put in link again.   

SURVEY

This survey report is informative.  The upcoming exhibition by EAAC resulted from this survey report.   

I wondered if a few of questions should be limited to one specific disability rather than to ask whole bunch of disabilities.  

I won't go into the details of this report because it is pretty much self-explanatory. If any of you wish to raise issue, cite # of an item and feel free to discuss and express your thoughts.   

See the PS below. 

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link:

Exhibition: transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0309/DA-12-379A1.pdf

SURVEY: transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/EAAC/EAAC-REPORT.pdf

PS: A question for you.   I may start doing video clip, but it won't be as detailed, just a summary of the post.  Will the "summary" be acceptable?  Or do you prefer full fledged video clip that included most of the post info?   LMK

Folks,

Here are the comments from four certified VRS providers which commented on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on VRS (FNPRM) where the FCC is proposing significant changes to the VRS industry.

Click to the following link:

JointComments

Basically these VRS providers are asking the FCC to be careful in its analysis to decide on final order and offered caveats.  

Quotes:

"..to express their consensus view that it is premature for the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) to consider adopting the per-user compensation proposal.."

"We believe many of these changes will result in needed structural improvements to the program and should be adopted forthwith. We are concerned, however, about other changes being contemplated and we believe these changes require further dialogue and detailed review. In particular, we are concerned about the Commission’s proposal to replace the current tiered, per- minute model with a per-user compensation model."

Above referenced VRS providers commented on the following key areas:

1. VRS User Database.  Acknowledge its importance.
   
2. iTRS Broadband Pilot Project.  Supports the broadband outreach efforts.
   
3. VRS Access Technology.  Supports what the FCC proposed on interoperability standards being worked out by providers.  
   
4. And finally last one: Consumer Protection Safeguards.  Generally supports and felt they are necessary. 
   

VRS providers further commented that:  

• The Commission form a "blue ribbon" advisory committee
  
• The per-user compensation model proposed in FNPRM is will affect VRS in a negative way and should be conducted by expert advisory committee.
  

Worth reading as it is a very short one.  Let me know what you think?     Personally, I think the VRS providers have right ideas.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Many of you already have read or heard about the all-important ruling made by the FCC.   Basically, the FCC released Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on VRS.    Now Gentle Readers, this FNPRM has a far-reaching impact not only on VRS industry, but on Deaf/HH who use VRS as well.  

VRS FNPRM

Well over 161 pages and not so easy to understand.   The FCC started by explaining what VRS is, and then outlined past actions by the FCC on VRS.  After setting the base of knowledge, the FCC basically covered these items.

1. Whether broadband affordability could be restricting Deaf/HH from using VRS?

The FCC wishes to explore how Deaf/HH/Deaf Blind and any other disabilities can have access to high speed broadband and be able to afford it.  Subsidization or what?  Asking for opinion on that.  

"..that this broadband affordability barrier may be particularly acute for the deaf and hard of hearing community, such that some people who would benefit from VRS are unable to afford the required broadband Internet access service."

"one commenter observed, a disproportionate number of deaf American adults are unemployed, receive Social Security, live in poverty, or have household income below $20,000; broadband penetration among this community is therefore likely to be lower than the national average of approximately 65%."

And finally this "..we are concerned that the broadband- penetration ceiling may have become a constraint on the availability of the program. We seek information and data from commenters that would help us better analyze whether there is a gap between potential VRS demand and actual VRS subscribership attributable to the expense of broadband Internet access."

2. VRS Access Technology Standards

FCC is concerned that the VRS access technology is not appropriately developed to best meet the needs of Deaf/HH.  

"..such as requiring that VRS providers ensure interoperability with competing providers and that the technologies used to access VRS services be portable between providers, the record indicates that these rules, in practice, have met with limited success in two particular areas: ensuring that VRS providers have a real opportunity to compete for other providers’ VRS users, and facilitating VRS users’ access to off-the-shelf VRS access technology."

The FCC is asking the question that the VRS users may not have appropriate access to "off-the-shelf" technology.

The FCC wondered: "..currently available commercial video technology can provide closer functional equivalence, may be less costly, and is likely to improve at a faster pace than the custom devices supplied exclusively by VRS providers, so that the installed base of VRS access technology may be (or may soon become) inferior to “off-the-shelf” offerings."

There is more to this; the FNPRM explores more on this. 

3. Compensation Mechanism

The FCC felt that there is a better reimbursement mechanism than the current reimbursement by minutes.   The FCC is of the opinion that reimbursement by minutes should be replaced by reimbursing per customer.  In other words, the TRS Fund pays based on per customer, instead of per minutes.

There are conditions to that:  Deaf/HH can only use one VRS provider and stay with that provider.  FCC suggested that perhaps VRS provider can contract out for one year or term agreement.   

The FCC puts out significant portion of rulemaking into this. I suggest that you read portion on this; the FCC did its best to convey rationale why per customer reimbursement is better than per minute reimbursement.    

Disclaimer: Now I will this time not be neutral and convey my opinions.  Be aware I am one of the owners of Convo so take it for what it is.   However, those you who know me will know I am most interested in meeting Deaf/HH's needs and to ensure that VRS industry is healthy (after all I invented VRS so want VRS to be right for the Deaf/HH).

On broadband affordability:  I do think there is significant number of Deaf/HH who are not able to afford high broadband speeds.  What I am not sure how this can be addressed?   Should VRS providers identify who cannot afford broadband and then offer to pay for the Internet cost?  I think that would open up for frauds, so no go – my opinion.  Should a program be set up where Deaf/HH will have to apply to get reimbursement?   Who will be responsible for that?  Nightmare right there, and possibly bureaucratic headache.   I would be interested in knowing what commentators will suggest in the way of solution.  

On technology issue: my wish is simple enough which is to ensure ALL video products are able to communicate with each other, and to make that happen, the FCC will need to decide on a video codec and require that to be the standard for all video products.  Not unlike the voice for telephone.   The FCC is asking until that happens, what should we do in the meantime?   I would encourage the FCC at this time to keep the flexibility until the national video standard is adopted.  

And, finally this: compensation mechanism.    I am adamantly opposed to per customer reimbursement.   Let's look at per customer system of other telephone companies.   Large telephone companies that employ the model, often have hidden rules such as: cap on broadband usage,and inferior service. Obviously, that is not what we want.  

Remember, VRS industry is different that it has human factor: Interpreters which none of other telephone service providers have.  Interpreters are paid by the hour which to estimate the cost of interpreters and apply to per customer model is going to be extremely difficult.   

VRS providers work very hard to make their product superior to other competitors because they want Deaf/HH to use VRS.   Now with per customer reimbursement model and if VRS providers create superior video products causes the Deaf/HH to use VRS more, it will be losing money for VRS providers.  So basically the more Deaf/HH use VRS and if per customer reimbursement is used, VRS providers will lose money.   So VRS providers may not be motivated to create superior products.   

With per account reimbursement, VRS industry may not pay attention to the Deaf/HH VRS users in business or government because they are considered high-end users thus are expensive.   

Reimbursement by minutes model works just fine.  The FCC already have set in motion lot of regulations to minimize frauds, and that should carry over just fine.  With existing per minute reimbursement, we see VRS industry fiercely fighting for VRS users and offering many video products and very nice array of features.  With per customer reimbursement model, we may not see these.  

It seems to me, Gentle Readers, there can only be one logical and practical solution; keep the reimbursement by the minute model. 

Tell me if you agree or disagree with me.  

eyes open & thumbs up,   

Ed Bosson

Check this link out:

Braille Story

Quotable quotes:

"We have become slaves to keyboards that are too small and that have too many buttons," Mario Romero, a post-doctoral fellow at Georgia Tech's School for Interactive Computing and the lead researcher on a paper about Braille Touch, said in an interview with The Times. "Almost everyone has to look at the keyboard when they send a text message. We lose sight every time we text. And I don't think that's right."

Braille Touch would change that. It is based on Computer Braille, a system of typing that allows users to input up to 63 characters through pressing different combinations of just six buttons — three on each side of the phone. Users of this new typing system hold the phone facing away from the body, using the middle three fingers of each hand to chord in letters, numbers and characters such as exclamation points and the "at" sign. Spaces and backspaces can be entered through gestures of flicking left or right on the phone.

Read rest of the article; it is intriguing.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Long Link: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-braille-touch-blind-texting-20120220,0,2817977.story

This link is a prepared statement from the FCC Chair, Julius Genachowski on status of the FCC.  Released on Feb 16. 

https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/21512gen.pdf

The usual political bragging items on the accomplishments.  One paragraph caught my eyes.  

"We reformed our Video Relay Service Program, which provides vital communications for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, saving $250 million per year without reducing availability of service."

This obviously refers to horde of new rules the FCC have come out for VRS industry including minimizing the frauds, reducing number of VRS providers, etc.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed 

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.  

President Obama nominates two persons to be the FCC Commissioners.   

• Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel
  
• Republican Ajit Varadaraj Pai
  

WashPostTech Article

"..bringing relatively young but experienced telecom policy experts to an agency trying to redefine itself in the Internet age.  Both FCC nominees are well known for their experience on Capitol Hill and as legal advisors at the agency."

"Rosenworcel serves a a senior staffer to the Senate Commerce Committee. She has worked for the committee’s chairman, Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV.) since 2009 and has taken the lead on legislative proposal to bolster spectrum used by public safety and the private sector. She will replace current Democrat Michael J. Copps, whom she previously served as an advisor, as his tenure ends this year."  She replaces Copp.

"Pai is a partner in the litigation practice of law firm Jenner & Block. Previously, he served in the office of general counsel at the FCC for former chairman Kevin Martin. He has served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights and property rights. He will fill an empty seat created when Republican Meredith Attwell Baker resigned to join Comcast last spring."

I hope both will be supportive of services to the people with disabilities.  Once the Congress approves these two, let's send them email with congrats to remind them that deaf/hh/speech-disablity/blind/deaf blind/wheelers appreciate them, let them know we exist, and expects them to know and understand underlying issues with people with disabilities. Their nominations will go before the Senate for confirmation and that could take less than a month.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: WashPost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/obama-names-democrats-rosenworcel-gops-pai-to-fcc/2011/10/31/gIQAKG5raM_blog.html

Click to this link which focuses on Closed Captioning.

FCC Memo, Order, and NPRM

Highlights:

FCC reviews the application submitted by the TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, HLAA, AAPD, and CCASDHH for review of the FCC’s past order of granting closed captioning exemptions to various TV Networks. To get a historical review, here is a quote.

“From 1997, when the Commission first adopted its closed captioning rules, until mid- 2005, the Commission received fewer than 75 petitions for undue burden exemptions. From October 2005 through August 2006, the Commission received approximately 600 such petitions. CGB granted two of these petitions in the Anglers Order, and during the two weeks that followed, granted an additional 301 petitions in reliance on the reasoning of that Order.”

Consumer Organizations (the list of abbreviated organized above) challenged the Order by outlining several rationales.

Consumer Group challenged the FCC’s language of “..non-profit organizations that do not receive compensation from video programming distributors for airing . . . programming and [who] represent that they may terminate or substantially curtail their programming or curtail other activities important to their mission if they are required to caption.”

The Group disagreed with this: “..this standard is “unclear and unworkable” and creates an exempted class of programmers that is “impermissibly broad” in that it covers programmers who might in the future be able to provide captioning. They also claim that it is “unclear how the Commission [will] determine what activities are ‘important’ to a petitioner’s mission.”

Group argued against “blanket granting” for hundred of petitions with this: “They [Consumer Groups} further allege that the individual merits of each petition should have been considered, and that in many cases, petitioners had failed to produce evidence to support their claims of undue burden. They argue against the permanent exemptions granted, instead maintaining that temporary waivers “might have been more appropriate to the scenarios presented.”

The FCC ruled “..we reverse the 296 exemptions that were based on the rationale in the Anglers Order. Each of the petitioners affected by this MO&O shall be provided with a copy of this MO&O and notified, by letter sent certified mail, return receipt requested, that it may file a new petition for a closed captioning exemption, consistent with the requirements of the Commission’s rules and the instant order.”

The FCC also rejected non-profit rationale for exemption of closed captioning. FCC rejected the rationale for exemption based on a departmental budget set aside by the network for CC, instead FCC will look at the strength of the whole company’s financial data.

Personal comment: what exasperates me is if these all of these TV programs are for public, then what are we, deaf/hh, to them? Non-public? The religious programs, are they not interested in saving the souls of deaf/hh? Are we collateral sinners that cost too much and that these programs are willing for deaf/hh to be sacrificed to hell?

At any rate, I applaud the FCC for reversing its past order to remedy an obviously discriminating order.

I may do one more post on the same order, but treatise of the post will be on “undue burden” and “economically burdensome”.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1021/FCC-11-159A1.pdf

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