Category Archives: FCC

Editorial #18-FCC Workshop on VRS Reform

The FCC on December 4th announced they will host a workshop on December 17th on VRS reform.

This is an attempt by the FCC to review all aspects of VRS as a service. It can result in some changes but the bottom line is that we won’t lose VRS service. At the workshop, we need to be sure our needs and views are heard. The workshop will cover three areas (as copied verbatim from the FCC announcement):

1) The most efficient way to deliver VRS, particularly whether the service should remain a competitive service or be provided via competitive bidding;

2) A fair, efficient, and transparent compensation methodology; and,

3) Mechanisms for combating waste, fraudand abuse, addressing service rules, and addressing technical matters such as interoperability, ten-digit numbering, and emergency call handling.

Dr. Z will comment on each of the 3 areas in editorials in the forthcoming days to come (prior to the workshop.) These issues are important and it is time for the FCC to look into this. It is Dr. Z’s hope that the end result will be a better VRS service for us all.

It will take place from 2-5 pm and will be open captioned on the web using this address http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio. You may want to test it and download your copy of Real Player to be prepared.

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

Editorial #17-Flash NEWS-FCC Issues Temporary Waiver for 866 Numbers

Today the FCC issued a temporary 4-month waiver for toll free numbers (including 866 numbers). This means any relay provider who has removed 866 numbers from their data base has to put them back. This includes Sorenson which is a major provider and caused gallons of Pepto Bismol to be consumed by the deaf and hard of hearing community, the VRS industry and the FCC in dealing with the 866 issue. Dr. Z tips his hat off to the FCC for listening to our concerns. While this is temporary, this gives us time to discuss our thoughts, exchange our views and come up with a resolution for toll-free numbers that works for us all. (Link to FCC order)

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

P.S. The makers of Pepto Bismol can now restock the shelves of the stores selling them.

Editorial #16-The 800/866 Fiasco-The Drumbeat Rolls On (NEW)

The 866 fiasco is affecting everyone and everyone is going bonkers to the point that most of the national deaf organizations and video relay companies, except Sorenson have made their thoughts known to the FCC. You can go to the FCC website to read ex parte notices by those who met with the FCC. (Link to Postings)

Like Dr. Z said before, one needs to modify the configuration on their VP-200 by going through three screens. Our colleague, a well known blogger, Karen Putz, has written a nice post on her website on this matter. (Link to Karen’s writeup)

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Editorial #15-The 800/866 Fiasco-More Information (NEW)

Interoperability and Functional Equivalency

Interoperability means that any piece of equipment must be able to access other equipment.  Functional equivalence means that any service element must be equal to what hearing people have. This is a FCC mandate. (Link to FCC declaratory ruling 06-57). Paragraph 34 of that ruling defines interoperability and functional equivalency in some detail and I have quoted that below.

The 866 situation we have today is causing a lot of headache and Dr. Z feels bad about it because our deaf and hard of hearing colleagues are very confused.  Sorenson took down their 866 numbers and other deaf and hard of hearing people who do not have Sorenson units cannot call another deaf or hard of hearing people with Sorenson units while deaf and hard of hearing people with Sorenson units can still call other deaf and hard of hearing people with Sorenson units using 866 numbers. Hearing people can call Sorenson units with 866 numbers.  This is second-class treatment by Sorenson again–they are treating hearing people better than deaf people again.

Also, to further the confusion, Sorenson is using 866 numbers as the default basis for generating Caller-ID’s for all outgoing calls. If a non-Sorenson unit receives a call from a Sorenson unit, this non-Sorenson unit gets the 866 number instead of a local number and when it is used to call back, it goes instead to an interpreter because the 866 number is not registered on the national data base. This effectively blocks the non-Sorenson user from calling back to the Sorenson unit. If a local number was passed using a standard and recognizable format instead, there would not be a problem.

Text of paragraph 34 of FCC Declaratory ruling 06-57:

34.   In sum, consistent with functional equivalency, all VRS consumers must be able to place a VRS call through any of the VRS providers’ service, and all VRS providers must be able to receive calls from, and make calls to, any VRS consumer.  Therefore, a provider may not block calls so that VRS equipment cannot be used with other providers’ service.  In addition, a provider may not take other steps that restrict a consumer’s unfettered access to other providers’ service.  This includes the practice of providing degraded service quality to consumers using VRS equipment or service with another provider’s service.  Finally, new providers seeking to offer service have the burden of ensuring that their service is interoperable with existing providers’ service.

Sorenson, by doing some things with 866 numbers, does not meet this definition of interoperability, in my view.  Dr. Z is pleading with Sorenson and the FCC to reread this in light of the current situation. Comprende?

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Editorial #14-The 800/866 Fiasco (NEW)

For hearing people:

– Sprint cell phones can call ATT cell phones using 800/866 numbers.
– ATT cell phones can call Verizon cell phones using 800/866 numbers.
– Verizon cell phones can call Sprint cell phones using 800/866 numbers.

For deaf and hard of hearing people:

– Z-Phones (Z-150, Z-340, Z-Ojo) can call Purple devices using 800/866 numbers.
– Sorenson VP-200’s can call Z-Phones using 800/866 numbers
– Hearing people can call Z-Phones and Purple phones using 800/866 numbers
– Z-Phones, Purple units, Snap units cannot call Sorenson VP-200’s using 800/866 numbers (that is because Sorenson does not handle 800/866 calls from other providers–only from Sorenson units)
– Hearing people can call Sorenson VP-200’s using 800/866 numbers

(Sorenson is treating hearing people better than deaf people–its units are accepting 800/866 calls from all hearing people and not accepting 800/866 calls from deaf people who do not have VP-200’s.)

The FCC issued a clarification that 800/866 numbers shall not be part of the national data base and this is contributing to a functionally unequivalent system for deaf and hard of hearing people.

Is this functional equivalence? According to the Federal legal code 47 C.F.R. § 64.601, paragraph 15 which states that any TRS or VRS service elements must be equivalent (or equal) to what the hearing people have.

Is anyone listening?  There is a lot of confusion out there (this is based on a first-hand observation of Dr. Z and his colleague, who visited 21 cities in recent weeks to talk about numbering.)  Do we deserve this?

CSDVRS has filed a petition to allow 800/866 numbers to be used.  TDI has met with the FCC supporting that petition. The NAD has issued a press release on this matter.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Editorial #13-Dr. Z's Thoughts on Today's News (November 19, 2009) (NEW)

Today’s charges regarding VRS fraud is a wake up call to everyone involved in the industry–consumers, interpreters and the VRS companies. History tells us any industry in rapid growth mode usually gets slowed down with a variety of issues–the situation today is an example of this issue. The charges today are serious and if true, should be dealt with appropriately.

Some people have commented as to whether it will hurt the VRS industry. As far as I am concerned–this will not reduce our access to VRS nor communication access in general. The Chief of Staff of the FCC, Edward Lazarus made this clear in his press release when he said ” I would also emphasize that nothing we do today, or in this investigation, will prevent the processing of legitimate VRS calls. Moving forward, our goal will be simple: to ensure that the VRS program is one that the American people can be proud of, and that the deaf community can rely on.” This is relieving to know.

We deaf and hard of hearing consumers value the service as second to none–it has provided us with functionally equivalent access to communication that we didn’t have prior to 2000. We should not let today’s news reduce that access. We must work together to weed out weaknesses in the system that funds VRS and move on to greater things—even better communication access.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Ask Dr. Z-How to File a Complaint with the FCC? How Do You Read Other Filings with the FCC? (NEW)

As we all know, the FCC is responsible for insuring communication access for all of us. They depend on feedback from the community to guide them in making their decisions. In Dr. Z’s travels across the country, some people during the question and answer sessions have stated some complaints about some VRS companies providing the service. Dr. Z has told them that complaining via a blog or to their friends does not make things happen. If you want to make things happen, the way to do it is to complain directly to the FCC. It is easy to do that and Dr. Z has written about this before and he is writing this again now. You need to click the link below and enter the number “03-123” in the Proceeding Number and fill out the rest of the form and click “Continue”.

Link to File a Complaint with the FCC

Complaints, petitions, filings and orders are public information. They appear on the FCC’s website. You can click the following link and enter “03-123” as the Proceeding Number and click “Search for Comments” (You do not have to enter anything else). You will get a list of different things filed with the FCC about VRS, including complaints.

Link to See all Filings, Including Complaints with the FCC

The more information the FCC gets, the more your communication expectations will be met.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

CSDVRS, LLC (ZVRS), Purple and Snap File Request with FCC Regarding Sorenson's Refusal to Make its Equipment Comply with Standards for Caller-ID

This “cease and desist” request was filed with the FCC on June 16, 2009. In order for all videophone equipment to communicate with each other, such as Z150 with VP200, or Purple MVP with OJO, they must follow standards or “international rules” that the industry agrees on to make equipment talk to one another. This standard is called H.323.

For example, for cell phones, if an user using an ATT cell phone calls another user with a Verizon cell phone, they can talk with each other and a Verizon cell phone can see the Caller-ID of the ATT cell phone. With videophones, all videophones except the VP-200 can see the Caller-ID of the other videophones because they follow the H.323 standard. In this request, CSDVRS, LLC (ZVRS) Purple and SNAP are asking the FCC to put the Caller-ID in the right place so other videophone equipment such as the Z150, MVP or the Ojo can see the Caller-ID information. If the VP-200 does not show the Caller-ID to an agent (VI) who works for CSDVRS, Purple or SNAP, then the agent cannot make the Caller-ID available to a videophone. If you use a VP-200 to call another VP200, the VP-200 user can see the caller-ID. This is not “fair” or to use a legal term not “functionally equivalent” because a non VP-200 phone cannot see the Caller-ID of a VP-200.

To see a copy of the request:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520222403

Sorenson responded on June 26, 2009 stating the following:

1) that it complies with all relevant rules governing Caller-ID
2) that it has proposed a standard that would allow providers to share calling party information
3) its method for passing calling party information is consistent with the interoperability ruling
4) Caller-ID has no impact on emergency calls or on registration requirements

To see a copy of Sorenson’s response:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520223353

You need to read both filings, the filing of the request from, CSDVRS, Purple and Snap, and the reply from Sorenson to draw a conclusion.

As of July 23rd, 2009, the FCC has not yet acted on the request from CSDVRS (ZVRS), Purple and Snap. o

FCC Sets VRS Rates the Same-For Now

The FCC has issued an order adopting the NECA’s recommended rates for VRS for this year, subject to the current rulemaking process which is currently underway.  The FCC could at the conclusion of the process, decide to revise or make the rates stay the same.

The NECA is a third-party, non-profit organization that is contracted by the FCC to collect costs and other data to help the FCC determine reimbursement rates for TRS  (Telecommunications Relay Service) and VRS (Video Relay Service).  Every year, early in the year all TRS and VRS provides submit their costs and projections for the following year to NECA.  NECA then reviews them and makes recommendations to the FCC.  The FCC, before July 1st, sets the rates for the following year.  In the case of VRS, as previously mentioned, they set and froze the rates from 2007-2010, but they just issued a rulemaking process which may change the rates for 2009 or a time frame they could decide.

more…

FCC Review of VRS Rates

The FCC recently announced it was thinking of reviewing VRS rates. This is an unexpected move since in 2007, the FCC agreed to “freeze” rates for 3 years and revisit it in 2010. When they made the announcement in 2007, it made it possible for VRS companies to plan their budgets, hiring, staffing, investments in technology because the VRS companies were expecting the rates to stay at the same level until 2010.

Now the FCC is thinking of changing rates before 2010–some may not think it is the right thing to do– some companies have gone public with their concerns about the FCC rates, some companies used other organizations to pressure consumers to pressure the FCC, other companies such as ZVRS have had discussions with the FCC and try to suggest alternative ways to fund the service.

more…