Author Archives: pbravin

Editorial #47-Open Up Your Books, You Folks! What is There to Hide?

Dr. Z has been purposefully quiet the past few days. He wanted to see how things looked after the dust settled.

While it looks like things are quiet, there’s a lot of things happening behind the scenes. The FCC is hard at work reviewing the submitted costs to determine rates which must be done by June 30th. It appears most likely that the FCC will issue interim rates for just one year and go through a review process to put in place a process that will be used as the basis for determining rates in the future. This calls for more transparency in the process. The VRS providers need to show their books to justify the costs they are submitting. Now the costs being submitted have to be signed off by the CEO, CFO or a senior executive attesting to the truthfulness of such costs, otherwise they can face charges of perjury.

To people on the outside, we are in no position to say the rates are right or wrong–we do not know what the costs being submitted look like. Only the FCC (and NECA) have access to these and have the right to ask for more information.

Sorenson, in ex parte filings with the FCC recently, are posturing themselves to decide what information they can share and what they don’t need to share. Why do they need to do that? Public monies are involved and there is accountability and transparency when it comes to public money. They claim competitive information can be gleaned from this. Numbers alone do not reveal much when it comes to competition. One can speculate from numbers how things are being spent, but this does not make or break the success of a product or service.

Product excellence, product quality, product marketing are things that form the basis for the success of a product or service–not numbers alone. There is basis for confidentiality for product or service plans, but not necessarily just numbers. The VRS companies do not need to submit product plans or information to the FCC, nor is there reason to do so, except in matters of interoperability.

Open Up Your Books, You Folks! What is There to Hide?

Amen.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access and how public monies are being spent.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

“America the Beautiful”-On this Memorial Day Thanking the Soldiers Who Secure Our Freedoms

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Editorial #46-FCC Issues Declaratory Ruling, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Today, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling, Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is a 34-page document and addresses a lot of issues that have been discussed for the past year or so. Dr. Z will summarize this information as best as he can. These rulings and notices go over and above the rate recommendations that were issued recently. They focus on the process of reimbursing providers for minutes, better documentation, audit requirements, certification of VRS providers, white label providers, protection of interpreters as well as insuring interpreters work in the US, among other things.

A declaratory ruling allows the FCC to set up rules that do not go through the normal rulemaking process. The FCC does not do this often but does this when situations warrant immediate attention or correction and Dr. Z is of the opinion that the FCC is doing this to forestall further fraud and take immediate steps so they can be sure the rates being established reflect appropriate oversight through audits, documentation and the like.

An order allows the FCC to set up a rule without notice and comment. This allows the FCC to exercise jurisdiction on matters that warrant immediate attention.

A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is a process whereby FCC asks for public review of proposed rules, allowing the public to submit comments and reply comments before the FCC makes a decision. A rulemaking process can take several months before the FCC issues an order or orders.

Declaratory Ruling

The FCC is reminding providers that if they do not submit to audits, they are subject to suspension or delay of payments. (partial quote from FCC press release)

Dr. Z’s comment/interpretation: The FCC has authority under the current TRS rules to require audits. If a VRS provider refuses to allow the FCC or the Fund Administrator (currently, NECA) to audit its books, the FCC has the right to delay or suspend payments.

Order

The FCC is adopting an emergency interim rule requiring the CEO, CFO or other senior executive of a provider submitting data to the Fund Administrator to make various certifications under penalty of perjury.

Dr. Z’s comment/interpretation: The FCC is requiring all senior executives to certify all reimbursement requests and submission of historical and projected data . In other words, they are responsible for its accuracy and factual representation. If the FCC finds the information to be inappropriate, they can charge the senior executives for perjury.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (as quoted from press release)

The NPRM sought comment a host of additional anti-waste, fraud, and abuse measures, such as:

  • Whether the FCC should adopt specific whistleblower protection rules for the employees and subcontractors of TRS providers;
  • Whether VRS providers must use automated, rather than manual, methods to capture a call’s conversation time, to the nearest second, for each call submitted for compensation;
  • Whether the FCC should adopt more specific and stringent auditing rules for VRS providers;
  • Whether VRS providers should make public their cost and demand data;
  • Whether Internet-based TRS providers must retain their call detail records, and other records to support their claims for payment from the Fund, for five years;
  • Whether a CA should disconnect a VRS call in which the caller’s face does not appear on the screen;
  • How to address fraud and misuse associated with international VRS calls;
  • Whether the Commission should make the senior executive certification requirement permanent; and,
  • Whether the Commission should prohibit “white-label” Internet-based TRS services — where non-certified providers offer service and bill the Fund through certified providers.

Dr. Z’s comment/interpretation: This is a partial listing of what the FCC is proposing. All told, the FCC is putting most of the outstanding issues that have emerged over the past year or so on the table for others to review and comment before they make it part of the rules in the form of an order.

The actual press release and text of the order can be found with the following links:

  • FCC Press Release on “FCC TAKES FURTHER STEPS TO ENSURE THAT VIDEO RELAY SERVICE WILCONTINUE AS A VIBRANT SERVICE” (link)
  • In the Matter of Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program-DECLARATORY RULING, ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (link)

Like Dr. Z has said in the past, the FCC has a process in place to handle rules that need to be outlined for all communication matters that come before them. The above is part of the process, like the rate proposal recently. This does not mean the FCC has resolved the rate proposal yet. It is still an outstanding process.

Dr. Z (and the FCC) cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #45-Recent FCC Filings

As indicated previously, the reply to comments period has closed as of May 21, 2010. In order for us as consumers to be aware of what the VRS providers and consumer organizations have filed with the FCC as well as other developments, here’s the current list of filings. An “ex parte” filing occurs when a VRS company meets with or contacts the FCC. All meetings with the FCC must be documented and acknowledged as it is a public and open process.

The following are links to reply comments that were filed on or before May 21st and ex parte comments since May 14th:

Reply comments-VRS Providers
Purple (link to filing)
Sorenson (link)
ZVRS (CSDVRS) #1 (link)

Ex Parte Filing and Letters-VRS Providers
Sorenson #1 (link)
Sorenson #2 (link)
ZVRS (CSDVRS) #1 (link)
ZVRS (CSDVRS) #2 (link)

Reply comments and comments-Consumer Organizations
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Senior Citizens of Delaware Valley (link)
Deaf Seniors of America (link)
Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (link)
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. et al. (link)

Some of the documents were filed by internal counsel and some were filed by outside counsel. It should be noted that Sorenson has brought in a new outside counsel in their ex parte filing with the FCC.

Dr. Z wants to help set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #44-What is Everyone Thinking?

Dr. Z has had the opportunity to go over some of the unbiased comments filed on the FCC website. He also had the opportunity to go over some of the vlogs and blogs that are out there on the web. This includes reply comments filed by VRS providers and the vlogs put up by VRS providers.

The consensus so far is obvious–the rates need to be looked at. The tiers need to be adjusted. This is part of the process that the FCC has in place. The VRS providers except for Sorenson have made sensible arguments and propositions for their respective situations, introducing formulas and other things that the NECA did not account for when they came up with their rate calculations and the subsequent recommendation to the FCC.

One of the key points is the 11.25% margin that the FCC is allowing for “profit”. The VRS providers in the weeks to come need to provide to the FCC that they need the 11.25 margin (and not more) to do the things that are necessary to provide a functionally equivalent VRS service. Some of the VRS providers in the past year have experienced less than the 11.25% margin.

What is interesting is that to date–very few are in agreement with the arguments Sorenson is putting up out there–most are disputing the facts and assertions they have put forth. This does raise a question of credibility.

The comment period and the reply to comment period has closed. The ball is now in the FCC’s hands. In the weeks to come, the FCC will consult with the VRS providers–trying to understand their respective positions and asking for more data from them.

Let us all work together to help the FCC make its determination so they can create a basis to provide a functionally equivalent service that deaf and hard of hearing consumers are privileged to use.

Dr. Z wants to set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #43-Will Bankruptcy Mean the Death of VRS?

Dr. Z is concerned with the behavior of Sorenson as the dominant VRS provider using hypothetical scenarios, threats and scare tactics to justify their position with respect to the FCC public notice. This is unprecedented in modern public relations strategy and this puts deaf and hard of hearing people as pawns in the whole process. This is what Dr. Z does not appreciate.

Will Bankruptcy Mean the Death of VRS?

The answer is an overwhelming NO! The FCC would not even think of hurting or putting VRS to death–this is a given as the FCC has a mandate under the ADA to provide a functionally equivalent communication service for deaf and hard of hearing people.

The dominant provider wants us to think they are indispensable and that without them, there will be no VRS. This is what Dr. Z takes issue with. They have every right to say they might go bankrupt–that will be their decision. And if it does happen, there will be enough VRS companies to go around to pick up the void should that ever happen. The interpreters will merely move on to work for the rest of the VRS industry. And with scalable infrastructure, the rest of the VRS industry will gear up in a matter of weeks to continue the VRS service. This won’t be “the end of VRS as we know it.”

This is not an emotional response. This is a response of common sense and asking everyone to cool down–we will be fine after the dust settles. The FCC will see to it we all will have a great VRS service. Dr. Z is confident of that. The FCC will be reviewing the proposals and documents from all the VRS companies in the time to come and will come up with a solution that ensures the service as we know it.

Let us all work together to help the FCC make its determination so they can create a basis to provide a functionally equivalent service that deaf and hard of hearing consumers are privileged to use.

Dr. Z wants to set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #42-The First FCC Deadline Has Passed—Now What?

Dr. Z has had an opportunity to go through most of the VRS provider’s comments to the FCC’s public notice on the rates proposed by NECA.

At first glance, it seems interesting. All the VRS providers have proposed a multi-tiered rate structure for the next few years–each of them differ in how they present it. Only Sorenson is proposing a single-tier rate structure. Why are they doing this?– Dr. Z is not sure (and suggests that you read through those and be the judge of those), but Dr. Z will give you links to what he was able to find among the thousands of comments that were filed in response to this public notice (in reverse alphabetic order):

ZVRS (link to filing)
Sorenson (link)
Snap (link)
Purple (link)
PAH! VRS (link)
Convo (link)
ATT (link)

The deadline for filing comments was last Friday, May 14th. This week, people can file reply comments to those comments that were filed. The deadline for the reply comments is this coming Friday, May 21st. After this, the FCC will then review everything and we will not know what the final decision would be for some time, but it should happen before July 1st. This is the link to file reply comments (reply comments link). This is where you file your comments as to whether you agree or disagree with some of the comments filed on or before May 14th.

Let us all work together to help the FCC make its determination so they can create a basis to provide a functionally equivalent service that deaf and hard of hearing consumers are privileged to use.

Dr. Z wants to set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #41-The Proposed VRS Rates-Respecting the Process In Place

Dr. Z has been traveling the past few days and he has had an opportunity to talk with many people and reviewed many of the comments, vlogs and blogs on the FCC website and other websites.

Here are Dr. Z’s thoughts on this…

First and foremost–there is a process in place to determine VRS rates. This process has been there since the early 1990’s when it was established for TTY Relay Service and VRS was added in the early 2000’s. The process has remained about the same all those years. I am repeating the information from my other blog in case some of you did not read the other blog. The process in place is that all TRS and VRS companies submit their actual and projected costs to the FCC’s administrative contractor, NECA in February of every year. In April, the NECA Advisory Council meets and then makes a recommendation to the FCC in late April and early May. The FCC reviews the rates and makes a final determination around July 1st. This is not new–all TRS and VRS companies know about this process. There have been some changes to the process, exceptions made for VRS (3-year rates) for 2007-2009, but the basic process has been about the same and it has worked relatively well.

Having said this, what is so different this time? The FCC merely asked for comments on the proposed rates. The FCC has not made any decision yet and they will not until everyone has had their say. Some people and organizations have reacted in a way that does not fit the process. The way to react to the process is simple–go to the FCC with some information, statistics and data to say “the rate being proposed may need to be changed because the data we have may support such a change….” This is the way to do it and this respects and preserves the integrity of the process the FCC has in place. Two of the VRS companies, as of the date of this posting–ZVRS and one other provider have done just this–they submitted information to the FCC suggesting how the rates should be addressed. Declaring and threatening bankruptcy and the “end of VRS as we know it” does not solve the problem nor it is the way to address the process and question being put forth. Providing data to justify one’s position is the way to go and that preserves the integrity of the process.

Of course, everyone should feel free to comment, saying things like “if the rates are lower than they should be after the FCC has had an opportunity to analyze the NECA data, it could affect the quality of the current VRS service.” This makes more sense than saying “if you take VRS away, we won’t be able to communicate”–taking VRS away is not the FCC’s intent–they have a mandate provided by the ADA to provide functionally equivalent service to the deaf and hard of hearing community.

What disturbs Dr. Z most about many of the comments submitted—they were submitted by employees and interpreters of the dominant provider–this is not what the process calls for. It calls for an unbiased submission of comments so the FCC can fairly make its determination down the road.

Let us all work together to help the FCC make its determination so they can create a basis to provide a functionally equivalent service that deaf and hard of hearing consumers are privileged to use.

Dr. Z wants to set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #40-Dr. Z’s View on the Proposed VRS Rates Submitted to the FCC By NECA

Dr. Z has a confession to make. He practices what he preaches. He counted to 100 (link) before making his views known on the proposed rates submitted to the FCC by NECA.

There have been vlogs and blogs posted in the last few days on this issue–some emotionally charged, some well-thought out.

First of all, we need to realize that the whole thing is part of a process. The process is that all TRS and VRS providers are required by FCC regulation to submit their projected costs for services for the following year to NECA. NECA is an organization that is contracted by the FCC to take care of this task. They reviewed the data submitted and made this information available to the FCC as they do every year. The FCC is now asking the public what they think of the rates, which is due May 14th. The FCC will then review what the public thinks along with the information submitted by NECA and make its decision for 2010-2011 or may change the length or the tiers or do something new. This is what we do not know yet.

The rate is important to all VRS companies. This is how they get paid for their services (interpreters, telephone lines, internet costs, salaries.) Like with our home budget, if we do not bring enough money home, we have to make cuts. If we bring more money home, we spend it on things we want or make improvements to our home. This is no different for the VRS companies.

The FCC structured rates for 2007-2009 into tiers. The smaller companies are in Tier 1 and the bigger companies are in Tier 2 and 3. The tiers are determined on how many minutes they provide in a given month. The smaller companies have higher fixed costs and cannot spread them as well as the larger companies so the FCC recognized this and they set the rates so that the smaller companies are paid at a higher rate per minute than the larger companies.

This time, the rates do not seem right. It shows something like this–$5.7754 for Tier I, $6.0318 for Tier II, and $3.8963 for Tier III. How can Tier 1 be lower than Tier 2. Logic says Tier 1 should be higher than Tier 2 because Tier 1 reflects smaller companies who have higher costs and cannot spread them as well as Tier 2 (which is for larger companies.) There is a big drop for Tier 3 for much larger companies. Also one company, which is not named, submitted their projected costs 6 weeks later than the February deadline. And this company was in Tier 3, so NECA had to disregard their submission. Whether this had a big effect on the rates for Tier 3, we will never know and could that have made the Tier 3 rate larger–who knows?

ZVRS submitted a proposal changing tiers from 3 tiers to 5 to make it more fairer for smaller companies and to encourage them to grow and develop (and not be penalized for the growth.)

The FCC indicated back in November that the VRS service is “here to stay” (link) after the arrests for fraud took place. In determining the rates, Dr. Z is asking the FCC to think of how the rates are going to affect the VRS service, bearing in mind the smaller companies are more sensitive to rate determinations since they have a smaller area to spread out their fixed costs.

If you want to tell the FCC you want to be sure that VRS quality is not going to be affected by whatever rates they determine, you should feel free to send your comments to the FCC. (link)

There is nothing in the proposal that says the FCC wants to shut down VRS. The only thing that impacts VRS is if the rates are cut, the VRS providers will need to cut back somehow on the services they provide. The FCC needs to be sure that the cuts do not impact the quality of the VRS service. This is a responsibility the FCC upholds for deaf and hard of hearing Americans.

Dr. Z wants to set the record straight so consumers have full access to facts–not assumptions or emotions.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.

Editorial #39-Guest Editorial-Letter from Sean Belanger, CEO of CSDVRS (ZVRS) to Employees and Contractors on Proposed VRS Rates

Most of you are well aware the FCC is proposing a rate cut.

This cut would be bad for us. It would not be catastrophic to us and it would not bankrupt us.

However the rate is very damaging to ZVRS. As all of you know, we have made huge progress over the last year and we have brought many new customers to the Z.

We are company that is in the building mode. Our investors have taken no money out of our company. They have had 0 return on investment. We have been running the company at break even continuing to invest in new technology, better service and better awareness for the deaf community.

The FCC proposes to drop our rate approximately 10%. You can imagine if we were at break even and had a 10% cut in revenue we would have to cut costs.
We would also find ourselves in a position where we would have to cut back on new initiatives and the quality of service (interpreting) would suffer.

We are going to fight the FCC on this rate cut and we believe that the FCC will listen to our argument and will move the rate up.

The concept of a rate decrease when our expenses are going up is very hard to handle and we will fight.

For our employees, keep doing your job and the great work you have been doing. Have faith in our ability to move the FCC to a logical rate and have faith in the FCC.

I have seen Sorenson ask employees to send “recommended letters to the FCC. “

If you feel compelled to do so, send an email or letter feel free to do so. If you do not feel compelled please do not send anything.

I hope you can speak from your heart about the great progress we have made at Z, the honest company we are and how we continue to change and improve deaf lives every day. It is very important that we not lose our momentum. We are about 4% of the size of Sorenson. We must insist that the FCC protect the small VRS providers like Z.

In regard to Sorenson, they have been hit with a proposal for a potentially damaging rate that we believe is not fair to Sorenson. It does not provide for a fair rate of return or allow for all the costs of VRS. We support Sorenson in their fight at the same time we support the FCC and their effort to allow ALL providers a fair rate of return and not one provider a huge return while others struggle. We believe the FCC will increase the proposed rates in all tiers and the VRS services will continue to thrive.

–Sean Belanger

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Disclosure: Dr. Z is a contractor working with CSDVRS on several projects.