6 thoughts on “NECA Proposes Rates for 2010”

1. Wow, some $ cuts. Poor thing!

2. Very sad. We all need to come together and write letters to the FCC. The Deaf community needs to let the FCC know that VRs companies cannot continue with these proposed cuts and let them know that we do NOT want our VPs or VRS taken away! Here’s how!

   Step 1. Go to http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=03-123&filedFrom=X
   Step 2. . Complete the form with your personal information (all fields with an asterisk are required).
   Step 3. Enter your comments. (You can type them in Word first and then cut and paste the comment.)
   Step 4. Select the

3. Thank you for sharing this filing by NECA. I’m responding because the Sorenson PR machine has been working overtime to get the support of the relay users to send letters opposing the proposed rates. I’m thankful for this opportunity to share my view not only as a relay user, but also as a 2 term representative of deaf and hard of hearing consumers to the NECA Interstate TRS Advisory Council.

   But until VRS providers are willing to make their operating costs public, I don’t feel relay users, including me, are qualified to comment on the rates. For now, the relay users’ focus should be on the quality of the relay services, functionally equivalency, and making sure we continue to choose among different VRS providers. I’ve been annoyed at FCC’s refusal to share information about the different provider’s breakdown of and totals of operating costs. I’ve also been annoyed with certain providers claiming that it’s proprietary (private) information not to be shared with the public. I know of at least two VRS providers that are willing to open up their books for evaluation only if all the others do likewise. So until the public has access to information to evaluate whether proposed rates are fair, I feel that relay users are not qualified to comment on rates, but qualified only on service and whether the service is functionally equivalent to the services that hearing people have. Until then, I feel that this issue about the fairness of the proposed rates has to be between the VRS providers and FCC.

   However, if a relay user feels that it is important to make a comment, I suggest the paragraph below as a model:

   “While I don’t have the information in order to evaluate the fairness of your proposed rates, I’ve received scare tactics on my Video Phone and/or via emails from the Sorenson PR machine that the proposed rates are threatening to the future of VRS. While they’ve been using scare tactics at almost every proposed rate cut, their predictions have turned out to be false. In fact, despite rate cuts, quality of service has not only improved as FCC has stepped in to correct Sorenson’s anti-competitive business practices, but also we’ve experienced an increase in the number of VRS providers. Nevertheless as a heavy user of relay services, I will continue to hold you responsible for making sure that the quality of the VRS meets high standards or at least meets your minimum standards and regulations (which, by the way, should be raised!) and is functionally equivalent to the telecommunication services and costs for hearing people with their various telecommunications equipment and their VoIP phones. I will also hold you responsible for ensuring that a reasonable number of choices of VRS providers are available as there are choices of telephone companies for hearing people.”

4. Hello there,

   I read deaf people’s talking and I saw some deaf vlogs. They seem very confused. I would like you to make them understand. They think, VRS shut down. I told them, no no no…That’s not one. Some Videophone’s company are laying some interpreters off and they are keeping some interpreters stay. Almost same The Ford’s Company and Dodge and General Motors are laying a few workers off and they are keeping a few workers stay. FCC give them reduce rates. I like to discuss with you about issue. I understand that there have so many reasons. You can call me on vp and we will talk… Thank you for read and good listen for our feeling concern…

   God Bless you,
   Philip

5. Purple had some very positive in-person meetings with key officials at the FCC. Click here for a copy of our ex parte.

   In those meetings, we had very constructive discussions on how to balance the needs to promote a healthy and competitive marketplace for superior consumer choice and service while compensating providers and protecting the integrity of the TRS Fund and the industry.

   We will be filing our formal position on the rate proposals by the end of the week and we will share the document with you once we file them.

6. Folks, the message came from the FCC yesterday:

   A Message from the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to the VRS Community

   You may have seen claims that the video relay service (VRS) program is threatened. This is not true. The FCC is committed to ensuring the provision of high quality VRS to all individuals who need this service. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires telecommunications access that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone services for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities. The FCC continues to believe that VRS is the most functionally equivalent form of relay for people who communicate using American Sign Language (ASL). We stand ready to meet our obligation to preserve and protect the VRS program so that ASL users and hearing people can communicate with each other over distances. This was the goal of Congress in passing the ADA and it continues to be our goal.

   Here are the facts: On April 30th, the FCC released a Public Notice (DA-10-761A1.doc) asking the general public for feedback on what VRS providers should be paid to handle VRS calls for the next year. The Public Notice seeks comment on reimbursing providers based on the actual costs that VRS providers themselves claim to have incurred over the past few years to provide VRS. The only way to safeguard the VRS program is to adopt reasonable rates for all forms of relay services. Thus, it is our goal to adopt rates that are rationally based on the reasonable costs of actually providing VRS. We welcome all comments on our Public Notice, and will take all feedback into account to determine the next VRS rates. The VRS program will continue to provide the excellent communication service that you need.

   Joel Gurin, Bureau Chief
   Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Bureau Chief