News from the FCC about VRS

Dennis S.

Dennis S.

Active Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
1
Wow, I got this from the USA-L News listserve. There were several issues about VRS addressed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC):

Improper Marketing Practices

The Commission has received numerous complaints regarding improper marketing practices, particularly with regard to the provision of VRS. First, we understand that some providers install video equipment at a consumer’s
premise to enable the consumer to make VRS calls. We further understand that in the course of installing the equipment, the provider’s installer may tell
the consumer that he or she may only have one VRS provider, or that the
consumer’s broadband connection may be connected to only one piece of video equipment (generally the equipment of that provider). These statements have the effect of requiring the consumer to choose a single VRS provider. We also understand that some installers may adjust the consumer’s hardware or software to restrict the consumer to using one VRS provider without the consumer’s consent.

The TRS rules do not require a consumer to choose or use only one VRS (or
TRS) provider. A consumer may use one of several VRS providers available on the Internet or through VRS service hardware that attaches to a television. Therefore, VRS consumers cannot be placed under any obligation to use only one VRS provider’s service, and the fact that they may have accepted VRS equipment from one provider does not mean that they cannot use another VRS provider via other equipment they may have. In addition, a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? It means that if someone comes into your home to install VRS and you get told that you can only use 1 VRS, you can tell them to back off. You're allowed to use whatever VRS provider you want, it's the customer's choice. They also can't change your settings to force you to use only 1 VRS provider without you TELLING them to do it -- if they change it without you knowing, oooohhh, big trouble.... Wonder which provider was doing that?

More improper marketing practices
Second, we understand that some providers use their customer database to
contact prior users of their service and suggest, urge, or tell them to make
more VRS calls. This marketing practice constitutes an improper use of
information obtained from consumers using the service,8 is inconsistent with
the notion of functional equivalency, and may constitute a fraud on the
Interstate TRS Fund because the Fund, and not the consumer, pays for the
cost of the VRS call. As we have noted, the purpose of TRS is to allow
persons with certain disabilities to use the telephone system. Entities
electing to offer VRS (or other forms of TRS) should not be contacting users
of their service and asking or telling them to make TRS calls. Rather, the
provider must be available to handle the calls that consumers choose to
make.9 For this reason as well, VRS providers may not require consumers to
make TRS calls, impose on consumers minimum usage requirements, or offer any type of financial incentive for consumers to place TRS calls.
Click to expand...

What does this mean: I think it means no more reward program -- apparently the companies are encouraging you to make "more VRS calls" for no reason other than to get themselves more money from the government. That means that if I want my internet bill paid, the company gets a LOT more money because I keep using the service to get my free internet. *grumble*

Even more improper marketing practices
Finally, we understand that some VRS (or TRS) providers may selectively
answer calls from preferred consumers or locations, rather than answer the
calls in the order they are received. For example, the VRS provider may
monitor a list of incoming callers waiting for a CA and, rather than
handling the calls in order, will first handle calls from preferred
customers or from a specific location. This practice also constitutes an
improper use of information obtained from consumers using the service and is
inconsistent with the notion of functional equivalency. Providers must
handle incoming calls in the order that they are received.
Click to expand...

Oooh! What does this mean? This means if you are waiting for a long time to make a VRS call, it may be because SOMEONE ELSE gets the VRS interpreter before you, even if you started calling first! Who was getting the VIP treatment? Why was I not getting the VIP treatment?

Improper Handling of TRS Calls
TRS providers may not offer their service in such a way so that
when a TRS consumer (including a hearing person) contacts the TRS provider the consumer reaches only a message or recording that asks the caller to leave certain information so that the provider can call the consumer back when the provider is able (or desires) to place the call. This type of “call back” arrangement is impermissible because it relieves the provider of its central obligation to be available when a caller desires to make a TRS call, and permits the provider, and not the caller, to ultimately be in control of when a TRS call is placed. As we have noted, the functional equivalency
mandate rests in part on the expectation that when a TRS user reaches a CA that is the equivalent of receiving a dial tone
Click to expand...

What does that mean? Call backs are BAD! YESSSSSSSSSSS! Maybe soon we'll no longer have to wait for VRS calls!
 
Wow. That's really interesting to know! Thanks for this topic, Dennis! :thumb:
 
New VRS FCC Ruling (WARNING: VERY LENGTHY)

credit to goes to qwerty123 and Dennis for the information about updated FCC rules. There are two documents that describe all the changes. I will list it all. Please correct me as I may do not have a great understanding skill when it come to legal stuff like this.

Cover:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256273A1.pdf

First one: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-140A1.pdf

We conclude that the Brown Bag Rewards Program, and any program that offers any kind of financial incentive or reward for a consumer to place a TRS call, including minimum usage arrangements or programs (whether or not tied to the acceptance of equipment), violates Section 225 of
the Communications Act.
Click to expand...

Meaning what? No more Brown Bag effective March 1, 2005.

Second one and my favorite: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-141A1.pdf
(most of those is toward SorensonVRS!)

Improper Marketing Practices
The Commission has received numerous complaints regarding improper marketing practices, particularly with regard to the provision of VRS. First, we understand that some providers install video equipment at a consumer’s premise to enable the consumer to make VRS calls. We further understand that in the course of installing the equipment, the provider’s installer may tell the consumer that he or she may only have one VRS provider, or that the consumer’s broadband connection may be connected to only one piece of video equipment (generally the equipment of that provider). These statements have the effect of requiring the consumer to choose a single VRS provider. We also understand that some installers mayadjust the consumer’s hardware or software to restrict the consumer to using one VRS provider without the consumer’s consent.

The TRS rules do not require a consumer to choose or use only one VRS (or TRS) provider. A consumer may use one of several VRS providers available on the Internet or through VRS service hardware that attaches to a television. Therefore, VRS consumers cannot be placed under any obligation to use only one VRS provider’s service, and the fact that they may have accepted VRS equipment from one provider does not mean that they cannot use another VRS provider via other equipment they may have. In addition, a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.
Click to expand...

Summary: NO MORE BLOCK OF OTHER VRS PROVIDER FROM SORENSON VIDEOPHONE :thumb:

Second, we understand that some providers use their customer database to contact prior users of their service and suggest, urge, or tell them to make more VRS calls. This marketing practice constitutes an improper use of information obtained from consumers using the service,8 is inconsistent with the notion of functional equivalency, and may constitute a fraud on the Interstate TRS Fund because the Fund, and not the consumer, pays for the cost of the VRS call. As we have noted, the purpose of TRS is to allow persons with certain disabilities to use the telephone system. Entities electing to offer VRS (or other forms of TRS) should not be contacting users of their service and asking or telling them to make TRS calls. Rather, the provider must be available to handle the calls that consumers choose to make.9 For this reason as well, VRS providers may not require consumers to make TRS calls, impose on consumers minimum usage requirements, or offer any type of financial incentive for consumers to place TRS calls
Click to expand...

Summary: We are in charge of our calls, not VRS! and "30 min per month in order to be qualify for VP" is not acceptable.

Finally, we understand that some VRS (or TRS) providers may selectively answer calls from preferred consumers or locations, rather than answer the calls in the order they are received. For example, the VRS provider may monitor a list of incoming callers waiting for a CA and, rather than handling the calls in order, will first handle calls from preferred customers or from a specific location. This practice also constitutes an improper use of information obtained from consumers using the service and is inconsistent with the notion of functional equivalency. Providers must handle incoming calls in the order that they are received.
Click to expand...

Summary: If you live in Arozina, but Arozina call center are busy, FCC force that VRS provider to put you in other call center at same time, rather than "if you wait for x minute, we will transfer you to different call center"

We understand that some providers permit TRS consumers (particularly VRS users) to make advance reservations so that the consumer can reach a CA without delay at a specific time to place a call. This practice is inconsistent with the functional equivalency mandate of Section 225 and the TRS regulations.

<snip>

we find that the practice of permitting TRS consumers to reserve in advance a time at which a CA will handle a call is inconsistent with the nature of TRS and the functional equivalency mandate. TRS providers must have available CAs that can handle the calls as they come in (to, by analogy, provide the “dial tone”) consistent with our rules. Handling calls by prior reservation is a different kind of service. For the same reason, calls must be handled in the order in which they are received (as we have also stated above). The fact that VRS is not a mandatory service, or that speed of answer has presently been waived for VRS, does not affect the application of these principles to VRS.
Click to expand...

Summary: Reservation (Sorenson offer that service on their website) is no longer approved.

In addition, TRS providers may not offer their service in such a way so that when a TRS consumer (including a hearing person) contacts the TRS provider the consumer reaches only a message or recording that asks the caller to leave certain information so that the provider can call the consumer back when the provider is able (or desires) to place the call. This type of “call back” arrangement is impermissible because it relieves the provider of its central obligation to be available when a caller desires to make a TRS call, and permits the provider, and not the caller, to ultimately be in control of when a TRS call is placed. As we have noted, the functional equivalency mandate rests in part on the expectation that when a TRS user reaches a CA that is the equivalent of receiving a dial tone.
(Footnote: We distinguish this situation from the use of a “call back” service whereby a consumer, who has called the relay center to make a TRS call and reaches the provider but has to wait for an available CA, has the choice of either waiting for an available CA (i.e., without disconnecting) or having the TRS provider call the consumer back when a CA is available to handle the call.)
Click to expand...

Summary: When hearing call SorensonVRS, they are asked to leave their phone number for the interpreter to call them when the interpreter become available. FCC do not find this good in their view. With the new rules, hearing will have a option to wait on the phone for the next availabe interpreter instead of leave "information" which is the phone number. Meaning they will need do hard on cutting down their waiting time.

Accordingly, because we interpret Section 225 and the implementing regulations to prohibit any practice that undermines the functional equivalency mandate, effective March 1, 2005, any provider offering or
utilizing advance call reservations, or a recording that greets all calls to the TRS provider and takes information so that the provider can call the consumer back, will be ineligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund.
Click to expand...

Summary: Everything need to be done by March 1, 2005, otherwise they wont get $$$ from FCC
 
Clarify on Sorenson's Blocking

While I noticed some people have different way of interpreting the part about customer should have accessible to various VRS, I asked them to reclarify on this issue where Sorenson hardware's do the block.

You seem to be referring to the fact that Sorenson gives away its
equipment, and is someone accepts it (no one forcing them to), then they
can use the equipment only with Sorenson's service. We know this is a
concern to many people, and are looking into it. But the consumer is
free to use other services, or not take Sorenson's equipment in the
first place. Is this really a matter of "wanting the cake and eating it
too." The consumer likes getting free stuff, and will accept it subjuct
to the condition that it be used with the provider that gave it to them,
but then they later complain they can't use it with other services
(although they CAN use other services with other equipment they have or
buy). It is an issue, and we are still looking at it. Hope that helps,
Tom


Tom Chandler
Chief, Disability Rights Office
Click to expand...
 
Maby should have keep my VP-100 now that there is no blocks ect. Nothin wrong with two Video Phones. Then again maby I'm better off with i2eye
 
Soonersseth said:
Maby should have keep my VP-100 now that there is no blocks ect. Nothin wrong with two Video Phones. Then again maby I'm better off with i2eye
Click to expand...


Able to have 2 video phones sametime ? I dont mean Using both at once you know what I mean LOL...

Just curious that's all.. cuz I do have VP100 I rarely use cuz i dont have much time so I think I prefer keep this way.. I only use my VP when I want to make phone call to my son's doctor.. that's what I have been using lately..


Wendy
 
WBHarley said:
Able to have 2 video phones sametime ? I dont mean Using both at once you know what I mean LOL...

Just curious that's all.. cuz I do have VP100 I rarely use cuz i dont have much time so I think I prefer keep this way.. I only use my VP when I want to make phone call to my son's doctor.. that's what I have been using lately..


Wendy
Click to expand...

Really not supposed too. I only have i2eye
 
FCC said:
The TRS rules do not require a consumer to choose or use only one VRS (or TRS) provider. A consumer may use one of several VRS providers available on the Internet or through VRS service hardware that attaches to a television. Therefore, VRS consumers cannot be placed under any obligation to use only one VRS provider’s service, and the fact that they may have accepted VRS equipment from one provider does not mean that they cannot use another VRS provider via other equipment they may have. In addition, a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.
Click to expand...

This above paragraph is grey area to me.

Examining one sentence -

a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.​

Sorenson can still allow only one VRS provider access as long as the consumer press the "I agree" button. Bingo. Still legal.

Let wait to see the reaction or further clarification from Sorenson and FCC.
 
Soonersseth said:
Really not supposed too. I only have i2eye
Click to expand...

Hey, "Not supposed to"? where did you find the policy that prohibits anyone from getting more than one free VP? After my research, and actually talked with Sorenson, Sprint, Hamilton... All of their answer was.. there is NO limits on one who wants VP! The only requirement is that you get seperate public IP address for each VP. Since I have three public IP address from cable modem providers, I was able to hook up three VP! Both Sorenson and I2eye. I find it valuable because I can turn both on and call VRS and use whichever comes up first and cancel others. Why should I whine if I could get three VP for free?
I don't think FCC would ever stop subsiding VRS... just that they are tweaking their policy and make sure there is fair share market practice going on.
because of the superior quality of communication I have with VRS, and that I found out almost every hearing person I call to were much thrilled that its VRS rather than TTY relay service... I even get better customer service thought VRS than TTY relay service. So Im sticking with VRS!!!
Augie, the Doggie
 
diehardbiker65 said:
Hey, "Not supposed to"? where did you find the policy that prohibits anyone from getting more than one free VP?
Click to expand...

A friend said don't let Installer from CSD know you have sorenson and hide it.
 
NightwarriorJin said:
Brown Bag reward is a way of paying your internet connection in return of using their service
Click to expand...

How can I ask for this ?
Can I just say "Brown Bag" toward Comcast (for example ?)....
 
I understand now about these rewards..
but I'm afraid that I still do NOT understand
why do they stop before this March ?

(p.s. thanks to Dennis for the link)....
 
Y, the brown bag rewards program will stop according to the posts above by Dennis. This means that if you can jump (they are saying you are allowed to) from service to service, then the ones (most notably Sorenson) who were trying to limit users to just the one service will no longer have a reason to keep customers in check/under control cuz it is illegal to do so. That's what I gather........right, Dennis?

However, Dennis, after the air is cleared on this issue, why can't the different providers STILL offer the brown bag program?
 
Tousi said:
However, Dennis, after the air is cleared on this issue, why can't the different providers STILL offer the brown bag program?
Click to expand...

Sure.

It's bad because VRS is supposed to be used when you want to make a phone call you normally can't make because you're deaf. You don't pay anything to get this service because the government knows it's not fair to make deaf people pay more than hearing people do to make their calls.

With a reward program, you're getting paid to make as many calls as you can a month on VRS. VRS companies PROFIT more when you make more calls, yet you don't pay for it yourself.

Hearing people don't get paid to make AS MANY CALLS AS POSSIBLE -- the more they make, the more they pay, thus the company makes more money.


Here is an example.
Dennis said:
Let's say you only know 1 hearing person in the whole world. Your mom. You call her once a week through VRS, chat for a few minutes, then go on with your life.

Your VRS company tells you that they'll pay you 1 DOLLAR an hour to make VRS calls. "Sure! Why not?!" you think, "It's free for me!"

You now start calling your mom all the time, just to use VRS more. You call her for any reason, and sometimes even for no reason at all. Instead of you making your one call a week, you're calling just so you can make some money. Just because you want your internet FREE for that month. If there was no money behind it, you wouldn't bother making more calls.

Now we've got a company with massive profits, a lot of people waiting for interpreters so they can get free internet, and the government upset that people aren't using VRS the way it was founded to be used.
Click to expand...

That's the short story. You want all the figures and details? Read below.

Edit: I'm adding that ALL THE NUMBERS used in this post are fictional. The current real VRS cost per minute is: $7.029 per minute. $10.00 per minute is used to make the math easier to understand.


What happens?

The company gets a LOT of money each time you make a call. You get $1.00 an hour, right? The company probably gets ten dollars A MINUTE. Not an hour, A MINUTE.

Let's do the math:

$10.00 -> Paid to company per minute
x 60 minutes in an hour
=====================
$600.00 an hour

Wow. $600, in one hour, for 1 person using VRS.

They pay you $1.00.

$599.00 PROFIT FOR YOU USING VRS FOR ONE HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How much is your internet bill per month? Mine is $39.95. That's FORTY HOURS of VRS.

$599 x 40 hours of VRS to pay my internet bill = almost $24,000.

$24,000 for the company to give you $40. A month. For ONE person. How many other people are on the reward program? 10? 100? 500?

I bet your mom would appreciate all the calls to her, but you never have any real reason to call her anymore. You now only use VRS to pay for internet. You come home, switch on VRS, and call, purely out of habit to pay for internet.

Who's paying for this? The government is! The government provided VRS for YOU to make calls like the ones you used to make to Mom, BEFORE the company twisted it into a way for you to get free internet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top