Having been around for some time (I admit to having white hair), I have found that a simple dictum goes a long way and I will take this opportunity to outline this in view of recent developments in the VRS industry and the FCC. This is a small deviation from my usual postings, but in the blogosphere, anyone has their right to express their thoughts–this is one of the wonders of the internet!

Let me explain this dictum—when a situation comes up, it’s usually better (except in cases of emergency), to pause before we react. If we react before we pause, we often regret the consequences of our reaction. If we pause before we react and then outline our reaction, even if the outcome may not be what we want, we can tell ourselves, we did think this through and people have reasons for their decisions or whatever the case may be, and take the consequences of the situation in stride.

The recent declarations by the FCC require us to pause, read into it, discuss this among ourselves, and with the FCC. Having done all this, we can then develop a course of action and work through the system to resolve any differences. Dr. Z is sometimes guilty of reacting before pausing, but he reminds himself to “count to 100 before taking the leap.” We should use whatever processes are in place to resolve any differences.

This is only the beginning of what we may see “a sea of change” in the regulatory arena when it comes to VRS. Remember, VRS is an industry still in its infancy and this is a mid-course correction which usually happens like when a butterfly comes out of its cocoon. At first, it flies carefully and unsure of its direction before going in its targeted direction. But going towards its targeted direction, the butterfly does not fly in a straight line–it flies up and down, left and right–this is exactly where we are in the VRS industry. In due time, we all will then settle and have the service we all cherish and deserve.

Let’s count to 100 before we take the leap. We all care about VRS as a service and it is here to stay.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

On January 28th, the NAD, TDI and other national organizations petitioned the FCC to reconsider the limitation they imposed on certain types of VRS calls such as conference calls and calls to pager company providers.

The result has been a lot of letters to the FCC from the deaf and hard of hearing community supporting the petition filed with the FCC. This is unprecedented as Dr. Z has been following the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System for quite some time and there has not been much traffic on this until the response to this petition. This shows how the community feels about not being functionally equivalent and that our rights have been taken away. If you feel your rights are being infringed, then you should tell the FCC why you support the NAD petition and why you feel you should not be limited as to the type of VRS calls you make.

Link to the NAD petition: NAD Petition

Filing to support the petition: File comments supporting the NAD Petition

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

A provider should care about consumers of its service and do everything to service their consumers. If a consumer decides to go to another provider, it is the consumer’s right to do so and the provider giving up the service needs to make it as seamless and not problematic for the consumer who makes this choice. Unfortunately, this has not been happening of late. It has occurred enough times in order for CSDVRS (ZVRS) to file a Petition of Expedited Declaratory Ruling with the FCC. In addition, a letter on this matter was sent to Joel Gurin, Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the FCC.

When a consumer decides to port (or move) his phone number from the old provider to a new provider, he/she is required to fill out a LOA (Letter of Authorization) to make this possible. The VRS company (the new provider) submits this LOA to a servicing company who handles the porting. The servicing company then issues a FOC Date (Firm Order Commitment) to the old provider and the new provider informing them when the port is to take place. On that date, the old provider disables the number, and the new provider activates the number. In normal circumstances, it can take several days to a week or more for this to happen. What has seemed to happen is that when Sorenson as the old provider somehow finds out about the planned port well before the FOC Date, it immediately shuts down the VP-200 before the FOC Date, leaving the deaf/hard of hearing person stuck without a videophone. In recent days, when this has happened, the deaf/hard of hearing person contacts Sorenson to ask them to hold off the deactivation until the FOC Date. Sorenson has refused to comply with their requests. This means Sorenson is leaving the deaf/hard of hearing person without access to 911 service. CSDVRS feels this is wrong, like anybody with a heart and mind out there–you can’t take away a person’s lifeline to the world, thus submitting this petition and letter.

This is not functionally equivalent—hearing people, when they switch cellphone providers go through the same thing and the providers comply with the process, including honoring the FOC Date.

This is the link to the petition: Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling

This is the link to the FCC letter: Letter to Joel Gurin, FCC Chief of Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

I posted this before, and I am posting this again here. This is part of the FCC regulations that outline the functional equivalency standard for relay services (while it says “TRS Rules”, VRS applies here.)

TRS Rules 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 (a) (15) (emphasis added)

Telecommunications relay services (TRS). Telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing or speech disability to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing or speech disability to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a text telephone or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device, speech-to-speech services, video relay services and non-English relay services. TRS supersedes the terms “dual party relay system,” “message relay services,” and “TDD Relay.”

Imagine a scenario when a hearing person picks up the phone and makes a call, and the phone company interrupts and says you cannot make this kind of call. Of course, it wouldn’t happen to a hearing person. But it could happen anytime soon for deaf and hard of hearing people using VRS. The FCC has given instructions to NECA (the organization paying reimbursements for VRS services to VRS providers) to disallow reimbursement for certain types of phone calls.

I cannot imagine the government intruding on our right to communicate like a hearing person. The law or the regulation above is very clear. If they don’t do it to a hearing person, then they can’t do it to a deaf or hard of hearing person. It is up to the deaf or hard of hearing person to determine the kind of calls he or she wants to make. If NECA continues to deny reimbursement for calls such as conference calls between deaf people and hearing people which in its simplest form is a legitimate relay call, it could lead VRS companies to deny processing those calls. Dr. Z is upset and is urging the FCC to take a look at this. This is taking a leap backwards–black people fought to get their civil rights–we deaf and hard of hearing people fought to get our rights via the ADA and all this is taking some of our rights away.

Today several VRS companies filed this letter on this matter. (link to letter)

Let us hope that the FCC is going to reconsider some of this.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

Rosaline Crawford, the Director of the NAD Law and Advocacy Center filed an ex parte notice on January 13, 2010 about a meeting she had with the FCC on January 12th on VRS issues. She was representing several other consumer gropups and the link to the notice is as follows: Link to NAD Ex Parte Notice. An ex parte notice means something that is presented by one party without hearing from the other side. The FCC requires everyone to file such a notice when people meet with the FCC. This way, all parties involved will know what has been discussed. This makes the process as transparent as possible. Three (3) issues were discussed as follows:

Toll Free Numbers

It was urged that the FCC take a position on toll free numbers. In addition, toll free numbers should be made a part of the national data base. It reminded the FCC that 3 months remain before the FCC’s waiver on this ruling expires. Dr. Z agrees that 800 numbers need to be part of the national data base. This way, everything will be functionally equivalent, just like what hearing people have.

VRS Reform, Rate Methodology, and Rates

It was urged that the FCC institute a new rulemaking process to follow up on what took place at the December 17, 2009 VRS Workshop. This will allow all interested parties to make their views known. Dr. Z agrees with this, but there is also the question of whether there is enough time before July 1st (when the new rates are supposed to go into effect) for the process to run its course. It was noted that other groups should be made part of the workshops (such as interpreters) and there could be tension among the various stakeholders.

Consumer Complaints about Blocked VRS Calls

It was noted that some calls are not being connected. In addition, NECA (the organization that reimburses VRS providers for services rendered on behalf of the FCC) is denying reimbursement for certain VRS calls. (CSDVRS filed a letter recently on this issue, too Link to CSDVRS letter.) Dr. Z feels that the deaf/hard of hearing caller makes the determination as to what call he makes is legal and proper, not a 3rd party which is detached from the situation and is not in a position to assess the critical nature of such calls. Hearing people are not being penalized the same way–in this case, this is not functionally equivalent for deaf and hard of hearing people.

It is Dr. Z’s sincere hope that the FCC will listen to this ex parte notice and follow up on this.

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

Happy New Year once again !!!

Dr. Z is here with his New Year’s Resolutions for the video relay service.

1) The video relay service as a whole shall continue to improve, have enhancements that go a long way towards making communication more accessible.

2) There shall be more cooperation between VRS providers in exchanging information so that all equipment can freely communicate with once another, without consumers getting confused as to why such a feature works with one device but not the other?

3) The FCC shall continue to issue orders that enhance functional equivalency of VRS.

4) We shall continue to see competition, but not be undercut by tactics by providers that instill fear, uncertainty and doubt in customers. We should not be afraid to make consumer-based decisions on our individual needs in communication.

5) VRS providers should lend a strong ear to consumer needs and not arbitrarily make changes and recommendations that restrict access.

6) VRS providers shall continue to enhance careers of deaf and hard of hearing employees and put them in decision-making positions. Boards of such companies should have deaf and hard of hearing people on them.

7) Fraud is not an option—VRS providers shall practice zero-tolerance when it comes to fraud.

8) Open standards such as H.323, SIP, H.263 and H.264 shall be followed to the letter by all providers. De-facto standards that affect interoperability should not be an option.

9) VRS providers should begin thinking of some sort of a industry association where there is a body insuring all companies work together to insure their service and equipment is interoperable.

10) VRS companies shall invest more in the community they serve.

Dr. Z cares about your communication access.

The FCC today hosted a workshop (December 17th) on VRS reform.

Dr. Z was presenting in Tennessee while the FCC workshop got underway. He was able to go over to a Starbucks to watch the second half of the workshop and the video was not that great–it stuttered a lot so some of the content did not come through. Thanks to Kelby Brick of Purple who tweeted the proceedings live on Twitter which helped fill the gaps.

It is too soon for Dr. Z to express his thoughts until he has a chance to review the FCC post of the video of the workshop on its website (link to video) (The first 5 or so minutes are not captioned.)

Based on what Dr. Z has seen so far and reading the tweets, not everything that we had hoped that would be covered was covered. But–the FCC is allowing people to file ex parte comments on its website (link to post comments). After linking to the page, click “Submit a Filing”, then enter “03-123” for Proceeding Number and under “Type of Filing”, click “Notice of Ex Parte” and fill out the rest of the form and click “Continue” to type your comments. So if after reviewing the video, you have thoughts you want to share with the FCC–Post away!!!

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

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

The following is the third of 3 agenda items:

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

This means that the FCC is asking for everyone’s thoughts on how various aspects of the VRS service should be addressed. Dr. Z has his thoughts on each of them below…

Mechanisms for combating waste, fraud and abuse
Dr. Z would go along with the proposal submitted by CSDVRS (ZVRS) n this matter. He does not agree with some parts the proposal submitted by Sorenson as they restrict the ability of deaf and hard of hearing people using the service.

Interoperability
Simply stated, just follow the standards set by international bodies–do not set de facto standards like what Sorenson is doing with missed calls and caller-id. Any attempt at crippling interoperability gets in the way of achieving functional equivalency and when that happens, makes deaf and hard of hearing people second class citizens.

Ten-digit numbering
Thanks to the FCC, it is starting to work very well and starting to be a level playing field. But confusing messages from the dominant player in the field is causing heartburn and creating the need for all other providers to redouble their outreach efforts. The FCC and the constituents of the VRS industry will need to get their act together on the 800 numbering situation to avoid the mess that occurred in November.

Emergency access
Thanks to emphasis on this subject by the FCC, it is starting to make inroads. As Dr. Z travels, he finds that consumers are not up to speed on this issue so further outreach is still needed for another year or so.

Let’s hope for a fruitful workshop this Thursday.

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

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

The following is the second of 3 agenda items:

A fair, efficient, and transparent compensation methodology

This means that the FCC is asking for everyone’s thoughts on how the VRS service should be funded. The current rates have been frozen for 3 years and this time around, in the spring, the rates will be up for review. Dr. Z is hopeful that the FCC will review the rates with the help of NECA to insure all VRS providers are compensated fairly and appropriately. Since there is a dominant player in the market and using the old mechanism for calculating rates can be affected by the skew of a larger provider. Dr. Z is asking the FCC to be wary of this and not let the dominant provider skew the rates when they propose the rates. Since there are efficiencies of scale, Dr. Z feels a tiered rate structure is going to be appropriate once again. If the rates are too generous for the dominant provider, it only serves for them to become larger and in effect getting towards a monopolistic position. Dr. Z is hopeful that the FCC will take all of this into consideration when they perform the rate setting process for 2010 and beyond.

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

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

The following is the first of 3 agenda items:

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

This means that the FCC is asking for everyone’s thoughts on how the VRS service should be provided. One extreme calls for competitive bidding with one provider doing all the VRS calls while the other extreme calls for competitive service like what we have today.

Dr. Z is of the opinion that we should have competitive service. If we were to have one provider with the lowest bidder, we will be stuck with their interpreters, with little control over the quality of the service, being at the mercy of some decisions the lowest bidder has. We in some way have a situation today with a dominant provider who is trying to call the shots and not working very well with the rest of the providers and we end up having a service that is not 100% functionally equivalent. It is Dr. Z’s hope that the FCC will continue the competitive service we have with more controls in insuring that the service is 100% functionally equivalent–things like missed calls and caller ID which are still not perfectly compatible today to be made compatible.

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