I don’t know if the FCC uses humans to screen submitted call data, or uses SQL queries, algorithms, machine readable call data, and computers to do so. Another question altogether is whether the FCC is utilizing machine learning algorithms in screening machine readable call data.

Regardless, this shows that the FCC has an intimate knowledge of the VRS industry than they’re letting on. Thanks to the VRS industry’s insistence that certain categories and sensitive information remain confidential business data, VRS consumers lose out some on transparency. We need to rely on the FCC to make fully informed decisions in the public interest.

Convo Relay’s Application for Certification (Section 16, Page 22)

In #25 of FCC 11-155, the FCC said, “[w]e therefore believe that VRS providers with legitimate business models should find greater opportunities to serve consumers once we have eliminated opportunities for arbitrage by providers who prioritize making money over providing quality service.” [Boldface emphasis mine]

The whole VRS industry dodged that bullet! If the FCC implemented a reverse auction for VRS services, the Ratepayers could win VRS business at the expense of existing VRS providers. Now that the FCC knows about these arbitrage opportunities that may exist in the TRS landscape, they’ll be better prepared in further regulatory actions governing the industry.

The FCC did invite further rule-making and comments, but only on subcontracting arrangements due to exigent circumstances, i.e., natural disasters, that are beyond the VRS provider’s control. If you want to comment, please do so in Docket #10-51!

For more information on this Order, click on the FCC DRO Release, FCC 11-155.

Thank you for your input. Something tells me you might like the last posting in this series, due out tomorrow.

I like the your usage of the term, ‘shadow customers’, better than mine! Anyway, your comment about the Federal Government running a central database containing identifying information about individuals and their disability is spot on. This is one of my reasons for my resistance in endorsing the idea that an audiogram/narrative be used. That said, various state programs required an audiogram/narrative. So there are central state databases that do have such identifying information.

However, a relationship needs to form between a VRS Provider and a VRS consumer. The best way on about effectuating this is to have a credit card number on file. It transforms the relationship to a provider/CUSTOMER relationship, even if the TRS Fund is funding the costs.

I agree with you; there should be no central database of customers, apart from the iTRS repository. Even the iTRS repository is handled by a private company, I believe. Rather, such information stays with the providers; after all, these consumers are their customers and they are responsible for handling the integrity of their data, their service, their connections, and more.

If the FCC suspects unseemly activity regarding a VRS Provider and their customers, they can always subpoena record(s), question executives, etc. under their enforcement powers. They can investigate activities as needed, and then close them out. Surgical precision…

I generally agree with your observations regarding the proposed per active-user compensation scheme. However, I will keep an open mind when the NPRM comes out. I do like the per active-user compensation scheme, if applied to the VRS industry at all, to be complementary to the existing tiered per-minute rate reimbursement scheme.

Thank you for reading the article and contributing to further discourse.

1. When compensated by the minute, interpreters are guaranteed to be paid for their time. Calls can go on as long as a customer needs it to. Customers can have videophones and accounts with as many different VRS providers as they want.

Sure, there has been abuse in the past where VRS providers have gamed the system by generating minutes artificially. Regulation enforcement can address this. These call patterns can be found by looking at the call detail records and watching for aberrant data trends.

2. When compensated by the number of customers, interpreters are only guaranteed to be paid for their time up until the compensation for that customer is exhausted. Any heavy users are going to be “borrowing time” from the pool created by the light users if this is going to make any financial sense for VRS providers to offer this service.

By compensating by customer, the FCC would effectively be disconnecting the interpreter from direct compensation for their time. This is not good for either the customer or the interpreter.

This scheme also dis-incentives VRS providers from providing long phone calls to customers. Heavy users are very likely going to find problems with their VRS service as it is very possible that long phone calls are going to have a difficult time staying “up”.

Having a per-customer compensation model incentives the VRS providers to manufacture customers. Finding “shadow customers” is considerably more difficult and manually intensive than finding “manufactured minutes”.

Tracking the uniqueness of deaf/HoH customer to VRS provider requires a central database, run by the federal government. This would require customers to identify themselves as deaf/HoH to the government in that central database.

If nothing else scares you in this entire debacle, being listed in a central public government database should.

My take; if it can be avoided, I wouldn’t go for requiring proof of hearing loss. This is because an audiogram may prove hearing loss, but would not necessarily prove that this person is also an ASL user. It would also not prove a speech disability.

If waste, misuse, and fraud happens, then unfortunately the FCC will have to implement such an audiogram requirement. In lieu of an audiogram, I would have preferred a statement by a doctor or audiologist, done in a narrative format, that this person has a hearing and/or speech disability.

There are three key concepts in my monthly nut/bounty proposal;
1) There needs to be an ‘active-user’ requirement. Granted, this is not readily defined. What constitutes activity? Is it one P2P call via VP? One VRS call? Every month? Every 3-4 months? Once a year?
2) There can be only one active ten-digit number that is eligible. Say, if a Deaf/HH consumer has an ip-based text relay 10-digit number and a VRS 10-digit number. Ordinarily, the ip-based text relay provider would not be eligible for the subsidy. However, if this Deaf/HH consumer is using the ip-based text relay 10-digit number 99% of the time, and rarely touches the VRS 10-digit number, then the VRS provider is also ineligible for the subsidy. Obviously, if the numbers are reversed, the VRS provider stands to gain from the subsidy.
3) There needs to be an eventual and gradual transition where the TRS Fund will cede the monthly nut onto the VRS consumers. Eventually, VRS consumers will pay a monthly fee to use VP/VRS, and the USF will cover the fee for the consumers that are not able to pay. Yes, I know it’s a contentious point, and this may never happen.

Regardless of the scheme used by the FCC in reimbursing the VRS providers for VRS calls, they are all incentivized to ensure that their consumers are Deaf/HH *AND* use ASL. A Deaf/HH consumer that does not use ASL will simply be a drain on the VRS provider’s resources. Appropriate outreach and marketing campaigns by TRS providers targeting at specific segments of the Deaf/HH/Speech population can help educate such consumers and to reduce confusion.

Essential PHP Security
Head First PHP and MySQL
Building Social Web Applications
Building Web Reputation Systems
Programming Amazon EC2
REST in Practice
Universal Design for Web Applications
Web Security Testing Cookbook
Website Optimization
Search Patterns
Javascript: The Definitive Guide, 6th Ed.

In my vlog, http://deafprogressivism.blogspot.com/2011/02/governor-cuomos-proposal-re-4201.html

at 3:53, I raised a question about the violation of our constitutional right also in my brochure,

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B17g3uEzB5NMMTZkZDU3YTYtMDUxMS00MTVkLTg5MGMtZTgwMDViOTAwYzlh&hl=en

it mentioned under Parents’ View:

Our educational choice will be
denied, which is in violation of
Amendments 13 and 14, which
guarantee the civil rights of the
right to life, liberty and ownership
of property, as well as equal
protection under the law.

Now talking about an imbalance cut between 4201 schools and public school is an outcry. We must find ways to combat this dilemma and at the same time, be a part of the solution. We are asking them to implement a task force to find ways to save money by including 4201 community’s input rather than just to drop a bomb on us. Careful analysis and planning need to occur instead of dealing with this kind of proposal since it denies educational choices and proper procedure including due process.

The other argument we made about this proposal was the elimination of competent TODs including Deaf teachers who are usually skilled signers and role models to Deaf students and that the intake evaluation and the IEP’s will be done by school districts who have no experience with these students nor know their language, ASL, that is.

So far, I have heard there will be 3 buses from RSD, 3 from Buffalo and many like these loads of buses from other 4201 schools. I am sure it will be over one thousand people at the rally if not 2. NY is doing a good job banding together as evident in websites and that there were nearly 80 legislators being in touch face-to-face by these 4201 students, staff and parents who attended Albany last Wednesday.

Dr. Mowl explained that part of the NY Constitution; “The Legislature has the power to make provisions for Deaf and blind children. The Legislature can make decisions and override the Governor.” So, it does sound like the Legislature can override the Governor’s decision when it comes to Deaf Education, and in funding 4201 schools. Still, the ‘permissive’ language of the NY Constitution that deals with the funding of Deaf Education concerns me.

Also, Dr. Mowl stated that 4201 schools underwent a 7% cut earlier, and all other schools didn’t. That was an interesting observation and raises disparate treatment issues under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Also, there may be existing NY state law and constitutional theories that can be used in safeguarding the interests of 4201 schools.

My concern remains the same; New York Citizens need to band together and advocate for 4201 schools at the legislative level, and do so strongly.

Reading it now.