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

Check this link out

$201K Bill

Quotable quotes:

"A South Florida woman got the shock of her life when she opened a recent cell phone bill: she owed $201,000"

"Celina Aarons has her two deaf-mute brothers on her plan. They communicate by texting and use their phones to watch videos.  Normally, that's not a problem. Aarons has the appropriate data plan and her bill is about $175. "

"But her brothers spent two weeks in Canada and Aarons never changed to an international plan. Her brothers sent over 2,000 texts and also downloaded videos, sometimes racking up $2,000 in data charges."

"T-Mobile told Aarons the bill was correct. She called Miami TV station WSVN, which contacted T-Mobile. The station reports that T-Mobile cut Aarons' bill to $2,500 and gave her six months to pay."

My position is that T-Mobile has the responsibility to notify and warn the user that cost exceeded $175; and ask "continue?".  Nice of T-Mobile to reduce to $2,500, but it is still way too high for not having forewarned the users.  It is T-Mobile's blasted fault as I see it.   The users should have known better, but since telephone companies serve the people, they need to be sensitive to their needs, I believe.   

Curious: do you agree with me or is it "just too bad"?      

"Deaf-mute" – geez, in this day and age, some media have not learned the politically correct labels.   

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/south-florida-woman-gets-201000-cell-phone-bill/1197329

Basically the main issue of the article is:

"Wireless firms are worried about being left out of the FCC's plan to reform a federal fund that subsidizes telecom services to rural areas"

Wireless

Wireless is conveying that the amount set aside for telecomm and wireless "..was out of step with the rising popularity of wireless devices."

Mainly wireless objected to $4.2 billion for wireline, and only $300 million for wireless.  Wireless claims that:

"At this time, when smart phones now place enormous computing power in an average person's hands, when tablets are on the verge of revolutionizing industry and education, and when demand for mobile broadband is exploding in our urban centers, this is not an investment mix that will provide rural Americans with the opportunities they need to compete."

-On the political side:

"Chairman Jay Rockfeller said he spoke with officials from the FCC that were "not thrilled" about the committee holding a hearing on USF reform.  The commission officials, according to Rockefeller, were concerned about the GOP-controlled House deciding to hold its own issue on the hearing.  The FCC is capable of moving forward on USF reform without legislation, but the size of the fund – along with the current budgetary and political climate on the Hill – all but assures the issue will draw substantial interest from lawmakers on the relevant committees."

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long LInk: 

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/187155-wireless-firms-want-in-on-usf-reform

By now I imagine many of you got this email below as well.

Self explanatory so no comment from me other than that is simply a great idea to see how emergency broadcast works out.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

*************************************************************

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are planning the first EAS nationwide test, which will take place at 2:00 PM (EST), on Wednesday, November 9, 2011.  The test will last approximately three (3) minutes.  Normal programming will return following the test.

• The November 9 test will utilize what is called a “live” national alert code, i.e., a coded message that will present itself to viewers as an actual emergency announcement, not a test.  This is necessary in order to allow FCC and FEMA to test the reliability of EAS equipment and the state of readiness of EAS operators and participants.  
• As a consequence, however, while an audio message will announce that the exercise is a “Test Only,” there may not always be a corresponding visual message alerting viewers that this is only a test.
• FCC and FEMA are conducting a public relations campaign utilizing print, broadcast, and other media to prepare the public for the test.
• We kindly request that you assist us in getting word out about the Nov. 9^th test to your constituents and communities, so that they know that the November 9^th event is only a test.  
• The FCC is also working with broadcasters and other television distributors to ensure that audio and video public service announcements will air during the weeks before November 9.  
• Attached is a brief explanation about the test, that you may use in your group’s newsletters, telephone trees, blogs, meeting announcements, or any other way your group uses to communicate important information.   
• Additional information about the test is available at the FCC’s website (www.fcc.gov/nationwideeastest ).

We will send you a reminder about the test 2 weeks before the Nov. 9^th test, 2 days before the test and the day of the test.  We appreciate your consideration of this request. 

Best Regards,

Karen Peltz Strauss                  Gregory Hlibok                        Cheryl King

As I get ready to go to Ark for a 50 year high school class reunion, noticed a letter to the FCC and thought I'll post that before the trip. 

It is a letter to the FCC from TDI, NAD, ALDA and, CCASDHH on following up on a meeting with the FCC expressing caution to the FCC to make the right decision on VRS reimbursement.

LETTER

Quotable quotes:

"..to discuss a likely Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that may include proposed changes to the per-minute rate of compensation mechanism for Video Relay Service (“VRS”)."

"..For example, the Commission’s NPRM should include questions about how to provide incentives for VRS providers to engage further in technological innovation, research and development, outreach and education, etc. Whatever compensation methodology the Commission adopts for VRS should support these incentives in a substantial way."

"The Consumer Groups expressed concerns that a per-user system would create incentives for providers to avoid high volume customers, that providers may game the system to reduce the number or length of calls from customers (i.e. longer answer times), and that consumers need the ability to change service providers if service quality deteriorates, just as hearing users have the ability to switch telephone providers (e.g., wireline to cable)."

It is good that the Consumer Group and the FCC are communicating on this very important issue.   Remember this is a letter reporting on a meeting that the Consumer Group had with the FCC so not everything is reported in the letter.  If you want to understand this more, contact the FCC or the Consumer Group.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed Bosson

Long Link: 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021712351

A combined telephone representatives expressed a concern in their letter that I agree.

USF DEBT

I know Congress is desperate to find additional funds to pay off the debt, but this quote scares me.

"Our concern first materialized upon seeing the flawed recommendation in the December 1, 2010 report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that identified the private Universal Service Fund (USF) as a source of public debt reduction."

"And in recent days our unease has grown as we have learned that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction may also be focusing on this ill-advised proposal."

Basically this is saying why not use USF to pay off federal debt.   

"Throughout its long history, the USF has always been maintained outside the U. S. Treasury and managed by a non-governmental entity."

The above quote, I agree.   The sticky problem is whether the USF is a public fund or private fund?   This group responded to this with the following quote:

"..legal precedents and guidance definitively confirm that the USF monies do not constitute “public monies” that are received for the use of the United States, but rather are private funds that are merely derived and distributed at the direction of federal statute. "

Now I admit I am at dilemma.  In this very edsalert, I have maintained that TRS Fund is a public fund.  What I believe is that any private funds contributed into a "public" service now becomes public fund.  However, I am of the opinion that even though TRS Fund is public fund, it is used only for TRS alone and cannot be used for other.  I see the same thing for the USF.   However, I see that this group is concerned that Congress looks for loopholes to use "public fund" to pay off the federal debt.   Their worrisome concern is valid, I think.  

Let me know what you think?  

eyes open & thumbs up..

Ed Bosson

Long Link: https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/92611ntca.pdf