diehardbiker
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 16,188
- Reaction score
- 16
Exactly, I have worked hard to explain Dead Deaf VRS users that they can't just depend on technical support agent, or Customer care agents, or whatever to convey their complaint to FCC. Its called "Conflict of interest". Most of the Deaf I talked don't get the term "Conflict of interest" meaning. That is where their message intended for FCC gets lost and FCC don't hear from them but complaints and rants about VRS making too much money. What they don't realize is that there are much more behind just paying terp to do the job. I have always directed them contact FCC directly, OR can always e mail to VRScomments@sorenson.com. I am not sure about NAD because they do have relationships with some VRS providers and it might cause conflict of interest.
I DO already noticed as soon as after Sorenson discontinued terp training program 3 or 4 years ago, their quality had declined considerable. Now more Deafies are complaining about poor terp quality. Since there is no training program, which leaves Sorenson two choices, warn terp to improve themselves OR fire them. Those who gets fired find another job, perhaps with Convo, Purple, WHATEVERVRS, Deaf then complaining their new provider didn't provide good terp. Its pretty much catch 22
Regardless, ALL corporations who are running business have done dirty business, and WILL always have dirty business to do. Its rare that companies would be doing business with 100% honesty because it can either cost them dearly, or they will go out of business in no time.
What I believe is that FCC needs to recognize the real needs of training program for relay operators and it would cost them money. I personally am hoping that FCC is making right decision, but from my experience, I think they are going wrong direction and again I hope my thoughts are wrong.
Finally, we need to realize that need of functionality equilvent isn't going to work, what we really need is functionality adaptive because the idea of functionality equilvent gives the impression that we need one size fits all. WHILE if we demand functionality adaptive, they could recognize different level of deafness needs. Deaf and HoH do not have same needs, their needs are pretty much different, and how can functionality equilvent is going to help?
Right now, FCC theme are Functionality Equivalent, whether you like it or not.
One person just told me recently, that I have deep passion for VRS and should go back and work for them again. I don't know and hopefully soon, I will be able to talk with those who works for FCC and find out more on where they are heading. I will be in DC, MD, VA alone with my friend on business trip and may have chance meet one of them who works for FCC.
I don't know about my future, and was hoping that I might stay in where I have passions with. I will have better picture within next month on where I am heading to. So, best I can say to those Deaf, especially the capital D not to give up and keep contact FCC directly and voice your concerns.
I DO already noticed as soon as after Sorenson discontinued terp training program 3 or 4 years ago, their quality had declined considerable. Now more Deafies are complaining about poor terp quality. Since there is no training program, which leaves Sorenson two choices, warn terp to improve themselves OR fire them. Those who gets fired find another job, perhaps with Convo, Purple, WHATEVERVRS, Deaf then complaining their new provider didn't provide good terp. Its pretty much catch 22
Regardless, ALL corporations who are running business have done dirty business, and WILL always have dirty business to do. Its rare that companies would be doing business with 100% honesty because it can either cost them dearly, or they will go out of business in no time.
What I believe is that FCC needs to recognize the real needs of training program for relay operators and it would cost them money. I personally am hoping that FCC is making right decision, but from my experience, I think they are going wrong direction and again I hope my thoughts are wrong.
Finally, we need to realize that need of functionality equilvent isn't going to work, what we really need is functionality adaptive because the idea of functionality equilvent gives the impression that we need one size fits all. WHILE if we demand functionality adaptive, they could recognize different level of deafness needs. Deaf and HoH do not have same needs, their needs are pretty much different, and how can functionality equilvent is going to help?
Right now, FCC theme are Functionality Equivalent, whether you like it or not.
One person just told me recently, that I have deep passion for VRS and should go back and work for them again. I don't know and hopefully soon, I will be able to talk with those who works for FCC and find out more on where they are heading. I will be in DC, MD, VA alone with my friend on business trip and may have chance meet one of them who works for FCC.
I don't know about my future, and was hoping that I might stay in where I have passions with. I will have better picture within next month on where I am heading to. So, best I can say to those Deaf, especially the capital D not to give up and keep contact FCC directly and voice your concerns.
second the Deaf community needs to become more involved directly with the FCC, not using a cut and paste letter but in their own words, explaining where the problems are and what FCC should do to address them...