Feb 10
26
As many of you already know, I currently work for Purple Communications.
We just received notice from Purple that when FCC had made their ruling on Feb 25th on how VRS providers can be reimbursed, they also included a very interesting requirement:
VRS providers are to pay FCC back for the amounts billed that had to do with employee-related calls. I know I’ve made calls while on my break at work using our VRS pertaining to my cable, electric, and gas bills. I’ve made calls to courts about my speeding tickets. Yes, I get speeding tickets. I’ve made calls to my doctor, to my dentist, to my dog’s vet, and so forth.
Majority of the time, I make those calls from work, since I work a 40+ hour work week. I barely have time to make calls while at home, especially since I usually work from 1p to closing. This prevents me from being able to call when I get off work. When I get up, I usually spend my time going out on errands- laundry, food shopping, and so on. So I opt to make my calls at work.
The end result? Now those calls are not billable. Meaning, now I am not allowed to make VRS calls while I’m at work. Now I am required to wait until I get home to make my calls, or get up early to make VRS calls.
Now before you tell me that I should wait until I get home, I should point out a very important issue: this is all about functional equivalency. Hearing people are able to make phone calls to their families, to their friends, to their gym, doctor, vet, and so forth while they’re at work. By denying the deaf this ability results in an imbalance.
I realize this FCC ruling is to protect taxpayers against abuses by VRS providers, but at the cost of this imbalance? FCC should have been more clear in this, and make exceptions for personal calls from employees to their own personal issues. I can understand denying them the ability to make billable VRS calls when doing it on behalf of their respective VRS provider—I agree with FCC marking that up as an “operating expense”. But I do not agree with them including all VRS-type calls, whether it’s on behalf of the VRS provider or not. This causes an unreasonable imbalance.
Now FCC is demanding reimbursement for previous payments to the VRS providers in the amounts of millions *IN FIVE DAYS*, this results in a large imbalance. Small VRS providers such as ZVRS and Purple will struggle to pay this amount in 5 days, while Sorenson VRS will absorb this easily with their large market penetration. End result? Some may declare bankruptcy and go out of business, some will be forced to massively downsize resulting in loss of hundreds of jobs, while Sorenson’s market share will triple. Sorenson will benefit from this. The rest of the VRS providers will not.
The one positive thing from this though is that those VRS providers who’re small and had recently launched will not have to deal with this recent development, and will go on to grow.
The internal memo that was circulated at Purple had no confidentiality notice, and I also specifically asked my department manager if I could share the memo with the public. My manager had no issue with that. But I’ve opted to not share it because I do not want to risk my job by sharing what actually was supposed to be confidential. So I will check with the executive management to see if I can share it. If so, expect another post.
UPDATE: I just received notification from executive management that the memo sent company-wide about the current situation was confidential, so I cannot share it here. However, the executive also stated he would be issuing a public statement regarding the situation. When he does, I’ll post it here.
It will be very interesting to see how this affects the VRS industry.
That is THE hidden agenda for FCC to look at ONE vendor industry!
Care to clarify?
I agree with you that the FCC’s intentions are well intended. However, these rulings appear to be myopic. The FCC needs to think out of the box and be more global to minimize backlashes. In other words, they need more deaf VRS users on their decision making team. Hope letters, petitions, and comments not only to the FCC but to legislators will help the FCC develop more efficient decisions.
One more thing… The relay funds are being paid by common carriers (telephone companies), not taxpayers even though the funds are being managed by the federal government (FCC thru an independent contractor namely NECA who collects monies from the carriers). To date, the Internet providers (cable, etc) are not paying one cent even though all VRS calls are being done thru the Internet! US House bill, HR3101 (www.coataccess.org), updates the ADA and includes the Internet providers. So far, it has 30 Democrat sponsors and no Republican sponsor. If you have contacts with a Republican legislator, please prod her/him to sponsor this important bill.
There is other way to use your company’s service while you are working, use your IP-Relay.
If you demanded FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY, then it is absolutely nothing wrong with making calls via different and minority marketed VRS Providers. I am sure the same way for the employees who work for their minority marketed VRS providers to call your VRS Providers to keep their and your businesses going without having some impact on Sorenson.
This would clearly remain no conflict of interests nor would avoid any incidents involving abuses within the system like these 26 people who were indicted by the FBI.
Please try to get used to this.
There is the other way to use your company’s service while you are working, use your IP-Relay.
If you demanded FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY, then it is absolutely nothing wrong with making calls via different and minority marketed VRS Providers. I am sure the same way for the employees who work for their minority marketed VRS providers to call your VRS Providers to keep their and your businesses going without having some impact on Sorenson.
This would clearly remain no conflict of interests nor would avoid any incidents involving abuses within the system like these 26 people who were indicted by the FBI.
Please try to get used to this.
Functional equivalency by VRS employees is accomplishable if they decided to use other VRS providers than their own for their personal calls. This eliminates the ethical issues and the potentiality of abuse.
If VRS companies had started behaving ethical and more responsible a long time ago, they would’nt have to deal with these sudden restrictions from the FCC.
FCC seems make very unreasonable demands upon the Purple Co in just five days to repay the amounts of calls being made by the Purple deaf employees.
That seems obviously the prejudices against deaf VRS employees to function and conduct their daily employment tasks.
I would not be surprised that the Sorenson is behind the decision.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Only purple have to pay FCC back. Nothing else as I know since I work at FCC. DUH
Hi,
The message isn’t really clear. In Ed’s Alert, someone asked if they worked for a VRS company and have used their personal laptop for VRS related calls, but later on after work used their laptop for personal calls, would that call be billable? If I understood Ed correctly, he told this person, NO! Meaning regardless, every single VRS employee or subcontractor’s calls to VRS is never billable? How does one monitor these calls? based on a phone number? Interpreter reporting system? What?
I do agree that if a VRS subcontractor is out in the field and when they call in to their employer, these calls should not be billable because it is done on the job . However, often times we are using the customer’s VP to verify that the equipment works. Every VRS company has different procedures for their employees/subcontractors. I think examples need to be given clearly so that we all understand what is allowed and what isn’t. While I do understand that purple does things differently than other VRS companies. I have never heard of a VRS company hiring deaf subcontactors to make marketing calls. That was new to me, that is clearly an indication of abusing billable calls.
Reading the FCC ruling the calls that are not payable are calls between the employee and the business they work for. This means conference calls calls to the boss, calling in sick, or calls made on behalf of the employer (calls made to drum up new business) etc. It does not include calls between the employee and other parties, i.e. your calls to the doctor or the vet.
The FCCs ruling makes sense. The fact is that Purple employees consistently warned Purple’s management that the calls they were making were sketchy. Management did not listen. The FCC’s response may seem harsh but I think it’s to be expected when Purple deals dirty for so long against the advice ad pleading by their own employees. Purple management thought the knew everything and ignored the voices of industry veterans. This is what happens. If they had done right from the beginning maybe they wouldn’t be facing such harsh penalties. We all saw it coming. We shouldn’t be surprised.
You can get functional equivalency by using a different provider. Functional equivalency means only that you are able to make calls and do your business just like hearing people. It does NOT mean you get to complain that you can’t use Purple. To me, the FCC mandate only says Purple employees cannot use Purple to make their calls. There’s too much room for dishonesty if they allow that. It’s very sad that a few dishonest, greedy people have made these changes necessary. Personally, I think there should be ONE national queue that routes calls to ALL the individual VRS companies, using a round-robin method. This way, there’s less chance for dishonesty because a caller could never be able to predict what company he or she would get. There’s plenty of business out there. This would equalize the playing field, and keep ALL the providers honest.
I disagree, Don. Hearing people aren’t supposed to use company telephones or computers for personal reasons, and I’ve seen hearing people fired for breaking such rules. However, they’re not saying Deaf people can’t make calls. They’re just saying you can’t use your own company’s telephone services in order to prevent fraud. As Lynn says, you can go to another provider.
Or you can do what I do and use ip-relay on your pager! We pay a helluvalot for these things already….
All VRS ought S T F U and follow FCC’s rules. End of discussion.
The FCC is NOT requiring Purple to pay back money for LEGITIMATE calls. Purple and other VRS companies are fooling you.
You can read the ruling yourself at fcc.gov
The idea that a VRS employee can’t use their employer’s services to make trusted phone calls is bewildering to me. Can’t you be a fan of using your own company’s services? If I worked for ATT or Sprint, I would like to have an ATT or Sprint account, otherwise, I wouldn’t be working there. If I worked for Google, would it be “dishonest” for me to use Google as my default home page or own a Google email account?
That is my major concern, this ruling places an undue burden on the employer and the Deaf employee. The ADA does not say anything about the employer must provide relay, that is in the realm of the telecommunications companies. Now in the event that a telecommunications company is also the employer that still does not change the employer’s requirement to provide access to a telephone.
Compare these two situations:
Company A, Deaf employee wants to use the phone. Company A provides an internet connection and a videophone. The employee is free to use any VRS provider they choose. The cost to the company $50 a month for the internet connection and $300 for the videophone. Assuming they purchase everything in the open market not free equipment.
Company B, Deaf employee wants to use the phone. Company B provides an internet connection and a videophone. The employee is free to use any VRS provider they choose. The cost to the company $50 a month for the internet connection and $300 for the videophone and $6 or $7 a minute.
Company B now has a negative incentive to hire Deaf employees. The Deaf employee and the employer are being penalized because of the type of business the company is in.
The true test is whether or not the call would have been made by an equally situated hearing employee. If yes, then it is a true relay call. There is nothing in the ADA that says that some employers get penalized and others do not.
My prediction is that this will perpetuate further discrimination against Deaf employees and applicants.
Furthermore, what about a Deaf owned VRS company. Is that person not entitled to equal access to telecommunications system?
The FCC allowed for the costs to be included in the annual data collection whereby the rate is set. That only means the costs will be aggregated with every other provider’s costs. Then and only then, if NECA approves the cost to be used in calculating the rate will it be considered. However, this is not a full reimbursement for the cost associated.
If you work for ATT, Sprinit, or others as employers. You will receive a discount to use their service. Nothing more. Technically, you still have to pay to use their service as loyal.
UPDATE TO ALL: An executive of Purple has issued a statement, and I will be posting that separately. Now to respond to the comments:
@Sonny-
Thanks for sharing your feedback! It is reassuring to see I am not the only one who supports the FCC ruling, but feels that they should think this more throughly.
@Out-of-Box Solver
Your solution does not compute– consider– FCC’s ban doesn’t just cover VRS calls, it also covers TRS calls, including IP-Relay. Another reason why it does not compute is: Purple owns IP-Relay, so I cannot use it. In fact, using ANY of the services Purple offers is now no longer an option for me because this would not be billable for Purple.
You could argue that even though it’s not billable, I could still use my company’s products. By doing so, I am using up valuable resources that costs the company money, which would be better freed up for other customers who need it more than I do.
@Richard Roehm-
Your suggestion to use other small VRS providers, while well intentioned, fails to account for a sigificant factor: company loyalty. I am loyal to Purple, which means I’d prefer to use my company’s own products. Now thanks to the FCC’s ruling, if I use my company’s products, it’ll cost the company money AND tie up company resources that could have been used for other customers. In other words, now if I use my company’s products, I *HURT* my company. If I use another competitor’s products, they gain money at the expense of Purple, which again, HURTS Purple.
My only option now is to avoid using any VRS product as much as possible, and if I must use it, use Purple’s products but minimize how much I use it. So much for freedom of choice.
Basically damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
@RLM:
I agree– the demands were very unreasonable. I understand their demanding that VRS providers pay them back, but in within 5 days? Very unreasonable. We need more time than that, in fact, due to our current financial situation, it’d be much better if we could pay them back in installments. I do not know about the other VRS providers, but I know Purple had negoitated an agreement with them to do exactly that, so this caught Purple by surprise. As for whether Sorenson was behind the decision, I cannot comment on that because I don’t know what went on behind the scenes. But I do know Purple has sent our top executives to Washington DC to handle this current crisis. Hopefully we will be able to survive this, and we will be able to keep our jobs.
@Barney-
I do not know whether you actually work for FCC or not– may I have your first and last name, and what department of FCC you work in so I can call FCC and verify your employment with them? Feel free to contact me directly if you’d prefer to keep your information out of public view. Just scroll down and click on Contact Me, it will take you to a form. When you send the message, it will be sent to me via email directly and privately. Until I’m able to verify your credibility, I have to dispute your statement that this only affects Purple VRS. We may be the first to be affected directly, but others will also be affected by this. I was able to confirm this via a credible source.
@Candy-
You’re correct in that the ruling, especially since it is vague and is not specific, results in all calls made by a VRS employee with that employee’s VRS are NOT billable, regardless of whether it’s inside or outside work. I do not know about the other VRS providers, but at the Purple Communications Customer Care department, we have a list consisting of all phone numbers of the customer care employees. So I would think it’d be very doable for Purple to compile a list and then flag those calls as nonbillable regardless of what type the call was. Our IT department also has the ability to identify the origin IP address of any call, so they’d also be able to identify whether the call was made from one of our centers, and if so, flag that call as unbillable regardless of what account was used to make the phone call. As to the technical details of how it is done, I cannot say because that information may be confidental. I do not want to risk my job in sharing information that could pose a security or legal risk without first obtaining executive approval.
I agree with you on that FCC needs to clarify on their ruling– this is why Purple is now addressing it with such urgency since this ruling has profound implications thanks to its relative lack of clarification.
As to the rest of your comment, I cannot address that because I honestly do not know what went on prior to my employment with Purple. I have only been with Purple since June 2009.
@Dan A-
You said: “It does not include calls between the employee and other parties, i.e. your calls to the doctor or the vet.”
I’d have to dispute that. In accordance to the FCC ruling:
“Calls made by or to employees of VRS providers and their subcontractors are not eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis.”
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296497A1.pdf
I also contacted the FCC, and they confirmed this. Because I work for Purple, any and all calls I make via Purple VRS, whether at home or at work, whether for work or for personal purposes, ARE NOT BILLABLE.
As for the harsh ruling– I am not disputing their ruling, I however do think that their requiring VRS providers to pay FCC back millions of dollars in five days quite extreme and unreasonable. They should allow VRS providers to pay FCC back in installments, in a reasonable time period.
As to the rest of your comment, as I have said before to an earlier commentor: I cannot address that because I honestly do not know what went on prior to my employment with Purple. I have only been with Purple since June 2009.
@Lynn-
Functional equivalency to a degree, yes. But even AT&T employees can use AT&T for their phone calls while at work. Any telecommunication provider’s employees can use their respective employers for their phone calls. So how exactly is this functional equivalency when I do not have the choice to use my VRS as my preferred provider?
Instead, FCC could have at least mandated that all calls made by VRS employees made on behalf of their respective VRS, subsidaries, and affiliates be nonbillable, while all personal calls made by those same employees be billable. That kind of activity is very easily trackable, and very much doable. Lumping all of those kind of calls, from corporate-related calls to personal calls in one is simply irrational and hurts more than it benefits.
As to your proposal about the national queue and the round robin method– I can see the potential in that, but am forced to disagree with that. I want the power of choice. I want to be able to choose which provider I use. I’ve had bad experiences with certain VRS providers, and exclusively use certain VRS providers due to good experiences with them. Having a national queue and denying us choice isn’t a good idea. It also defeats the whole point of competition, and capitialism. Like it or not, all VRS providers are in the business for profit. While their primary intention may differ, whether it be to serve the deaf community, employ interpreters, or so forth, they all share the desire to generate a profit. A national queue would equalize the playing field, but also equalize profits, deny choice, and eliminate the ability to effectively competite since there is no way to gain VRS market share. So I’m sorry, I have to disagree with the proposal, as ideal as it sounds.
@Joseph-
Many telecommunication providers permit using company telephones for personal reasons, providing it is done during personal time, and not on company time. I usually conduct my calls during my lunch break, or prior to clocking in or after clocking out. I myself checked with Verizon and AT&T employees, and they confirmed this.
As to your reference to what Lynn said, please read above of my response to Lynn.
As to your advisement to use IP-Relay– as I have said earlier– this ruling also covers TRS, so if I use IP-Relay (which is owned by Purple Communications, who happens to be my employer), this is also nonbillable, and would consume valuable resouces (CA’s and bandwidth) that’d be better devoted towards billable customers. Those CA’s and bandwidth cost money, which was the whole point of it being billable– VRS/TRS providers would get compensated for use of those resources. So using IP-Relay is not an option, unfortunately.
@Alan-
They’re doing that. The problem is that the rules are vague, and need to be clarified.
@Rox-
As per FCC ruling:
“Calls made by or to employees of VRS providers and their subcontractors are not eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis.”
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296497A1.pdf
The problem here: we’ve already been compensated for employee-based calls– and they have identified those calls as a violation, therefore the compensation must be returned to them. FCC does not see employee-based calls as legitmate calls, whether they were personal or on behalf of VRS or not.
@Anonymous-
I’m in full agreement with you there.
@Daryl Crouse-
I never thought of it like that from that perspective– the ramifications of this ruling are indeed most concerning, especially when you put it like that. But this is only in regards to employees of TRS/VRS providers. So I would think this is not applicable to other companies. So I’d like to know what leads you to think this will also affect other non-VRS companies, aside from the VRS companies being less likely to hire deaf employees due to the increased burden of keeping them employed.
@Alan-
While I can see your point, I’d have to say this does not apply to this situation. Know why? Those telecommunication providers you cited generate profit by BILLING the customers for usage of their telecommunication services. Whereas in this situation, customers get to use VRS’s services for free, and VRS does not bill those customers. Instead, they generate profit by being reimbursed by FCC for the usage of their services. So how exactly would those employees be “discounted” when even non-employees pay nothing to be able to use the VRS services? Valid point, but nonapplicable.
Thanks everyone for your feedback! I will be posting the statement from our executive in a separate post, but will monitor both posts’ comments and will be happy to respond to all commentaries to the best of my ability and knowledge!
My comparison is exactly that – it will not equally effect other employers – a non-VRS provider employer will not face the same burden as an employer that is a VRS provider. My opinion is that the FCC is overstepping their legislative authority. They are creating regulations that in effect control the actions between an employer and their employee that are separate from any legislative authority granted to regulate the provision of relay.
The owner of a company is often an employee of the company, therefore they would be covered by this regulation.
“@Daryl Crouse-
I never thought of it like that from that perspective– the ramifications of this ruling are indeed most concerning, especially when you put it like that. But this is only in regards to employees of TRS/VRS providers. So I would think this is not applicable to other companies. So I’d like to know what leads you to think this will also affect other non-VRS companies, aside from the VRS companies being less likely to hire deaf employees due to the increased burden of keeping them employed.”
The glaring question to me is on what basis does the FCC have enough information to identify that a call is or is not that of an employee?
The TDN should not be used to identify the caller by name. My employer does not have the right to use my home/mobile number for any use that I do not authorize.
Also, how is it determined that a call’s content is or is not “work related”? The content of calls is confidential, right?
Based on other comments that seem to indicate that “calls made by or to employees of VRS providers and their subcontractors are not eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund on a per-minute basis whether at home or at work, whether for work or for personal purposes, ARE NOT BILLABLE” robs every Deaf person who happens to also work for a VRS provider in any capacity of an uninhibited right to use the telephone.
Furthermore, this also appears to strip the right of any Deaf employee of an interpreting agency that is a contractor to a provider of their uninhibited right to the use the telephone.
I believe the right is inhibited because their usage of the telephone system for any purpose would be tracked, documented, made dependent on their employer’s discretion as well. When the cash flow is thin the first “expense” to be cut will be this burdensome expense. In no other situation can I think of where a Deaf person or hearing person be forced to depend on their employer for private telephone use or even work related use.
1 – Is this about the provider or about the employees effected?
My concerns are squarely on the employees that will be effected. There are certainly effects on the provider and they are entitled regardless of the past to the fair treatment of the law. There are providers who acted ethically and they should not be punished.
If you know my long history in the industry, I am the person who successfully petitioned the FCC to establish the certification program as the founder of a now certified provider telecommunications company. (See Snap filings in 2004, 2005 & part of 2006)
I also introduced the first SIP based videophone to the marketplace (Ojo). (See same Snap filings)
I am no longer allowed to run the company I started from the ground up. You can research the federal lawsuit that happened. I have sat across the table from venture capitalist and hedge fund managers considering investments in VRS.
I have no sympathy for providers here. My only consideration is the negative impact employees and their families will suffer.
2 – Business expense
The business expense considered by the ADA for employers is the cost of the additional equipment (i.e., videophone or internet connection).
No employer is required to provide relay, they are only required to provide access to the telephone. That has always meant a phone line, TTY, videophone, internet connection not the entire telephone network.
The ruling assumes the provider is now responsible for the entire telephone network as a workplace (and home?) accommodation.
Example 1 – Company A (VRS provider) has a staff meeting at the office where deaf and hearing employees are in attendance for one hour. All people are located at the office. The ADA would require the employer to hire an interpreter (if needed, assuming all could not sign). That is a business expense considered by the ADA. (~$120 cost of accommodation – interpreter)
Example 2 – Company B (not VRS provider) has a staff meeting by teleconference. All employees are hearing. All employees have access to the telephone network and use it to conduct the meeting for one hour. ($0.00 cost of accommodation)
Example 3 – Company X has a staff meeting by teleconference where some employees (Deaf or Hearing) are are in attendance by telephone and others in person. All employees have access to the telephone network and use it to conduct the meeting for one hour. (~$120 cost of accommodation)
Example 4 – Company Y has a staff meeting by teleconference where some employees (Deaf or Hearing) are are in attendance by telephone and others in person. All employees have access to the telephone network and use it to conduct the meeting (~$480 cost of accommodation)
Which company X or Y is a VRS provider? Can you tell by the cost of the accommodation to the employee? Company Y is the VRS provider but how is the situation any different from X? There is no difference except that a Deaf employee attended in person and by teleconference thus they had to pay for the on-site interpreter (example1) and the telephone network at what I assumed to be $6 a minute.
does anyone read the fine print? Read the footnote #13 on page 3 of the FCC order – It clearly states that personal or non business VRS calls made outside the workplace are compensable! They are not being asked to pay back all employee calls made outside of the workplace!
Is FCC audism and pressure against small business like HOVRS, ZVRS, and Ojo? While FCC supports SorensonVRS because they are 99.7 hearing?
Thank you for the clarification.
vrs interpreter Says:
February 27th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
does anyone read the fine print? Read the footnote #13 on page 3 of the FCC order – It clearly states that personal or non business VRS calls made outside the workplace are compensable! They are not being asked to pay back all employee calls made outside of the workplace!
Did FCC asked Sprint, Verizon, T-mobile to pay back if FCC pay them too much?
Did FCC asked the radio station to pay back if FCC pay them too much?
Did FCC asked the cable company to pay back if FCC pay them too much?
Something I think we are forgetting is that VRS was not meant to be a for profit business. The money paid by the government is supposed to cover operating costs only. When venture capitalists and business types who had never met a deaf person and didn’t know anything about interpreting got involved they signed the death warrant for many VRS providers. The fact is VRS is not the next big thing in telecom. It was never meant to be a business for people who want make millions of dollars. It’s a public service and should be treated as such. Shady dealings by VRS providers are being exposed and the penalties are harsh. If the providers had simply listened to industry veterans (i.e interpreters) rather than investors they could have avoided this. If you police yourself and do the right thing. If you ask before you act, then perhaps you’ll get more consideration when you do wrong. Yes. The FCC ruling is harsh, but you can hardly blame them after Purple and other companies did things that they knew were shady. You reap what you sow. The unfortunate thing is what the execs have wrought will now be visited upon us all. The silver lining is that while companies will come and go the need for interpreting will remain. As we weed out the posers and the tourists those of us who were here before will remain. We will continue to work with the deaf community to level the playing field without worrying about answering to share holders and investment bankers. Hopefully those with experience, knowledge, and an investment that goes beyond $$$ will reclaim the lead in the interpreting world.
@Dan A.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that shady dealings should be brought to light. Believe me, I know too well the result that shady venture capitalist and their deals can have on honest entrepreneurs.
Is it government money?
I want to correct something that is a vast and growing misunderstanding. The “fund” is not “government money.” The money never touches the U.S. Treasury. It is not collected as surcharge nor is it paid in as a tax.
The fund collects a “contribution” (%) from all telephone companies in the U.S. whether they provide relay or not. All telephone companies are required under the ADA to make their services accessible. The fund is nothing more than a “group purchasing” approach.
This money is collected by NECA, a private non-profit industry association of telephone companies. NECA in conjunction and by authority the FCC sets the reimbursement rate. NECA receives monthly invoices from the interstate relay providers for minutes provided. NECA writes a check/sends an EFT from the organization’s private bank account to the provider’s private accounts. The money never touches the treasury of the government.
This is very different than the state relay service. States may opt-but are technically not required-to provide relay for the citizens in that state. The states have decided to assess a surcharge on each phone bill. They did not have to do it that way. It could come from the state general fund. However, the practice over the years is to impose a surcharge. That is a type of tax.
I challenge anyone to find on their phone bill a federal interstate relay surcharge.
By the way, it is not part of the universal service fund. That pays for rural communities to have telephone service.
“Is FCC audism and pressure against small business like HOVRS, ZVRS, and Ojo? While FCC supports SorensonVRS because they are 99.7 hearing?”
Because SorensonVRS is the most “Trusted” and “Most respected” vrs industry unlike to those small companies.
Those small companies took advantage of “golden opportunities” to generate the money due to FCC’s weak rules.
I am sure that FCC has learned their lesson and building a stronger rules for all VRS industries.
When I worked at Viable, Inc and battled with them to raise the salary and they insisted me that their company is “small” while they are making a million and million dollars.
They had to bullshit and grind someone like me to keep the money for themselves. Especially, for personal thing. They used those money on car, wedding, houses, and etc.
Yes, I talked with Anothony Mowl, Jason Yeh, and other supervisors for hours and hours.
Later, they offered me to raise around 30%.
I was like WTF and why didn’t they pay me that amount of salary before and opted to quit. Because I was told that the money will be come from John Yeh’s money.
FUCK THEM. Those small companies cannot be trusted!
I am a former Purple employee who wishes to remain anonymous. Don, we didn’t know each other personally. However, I must say while I respect and value your opinions as a deaf consumer of VRS services, including the need for functional equivalency; I must disagree with your statements of “unreasonable imbalance” and the FCC should “make exceptions for personal calls from employees to their own personal issues”.
I also understand why you would make the following comparison, “Functional equivalency to a degree, yes. But even AT&T employees can use AT&T for their phone calls while at work. Any telecommunication provider’s employees can use their respective employers for their phone calls. So how exactly is this functional equivalency when I do not have the choice to use my VRS as my preferred provider?”
But you are missing one key point in the discussion – VRS calls are paid for by the NECA (as detailed by @Daryl), at regulated rates by the FCC. Not solely by the providing company – Purple. That is at the heart of the ruling and I believe the reason for the strong stance on the fine. If I worked for AT&T, made phone calls using their services, and then the contributed funds of the whole are used to pay per minute for those services, that is fraud. The other company’s who have paid into NECA are being defrauded of money. The FCC has been mandated to oversee this program and obviously found this activity fraudulent.
In this case, the human aspect is overwhelming. The basic right for a deaf person to choose their provider for a call is being taken away. And working for many years with deaf colleagues, I feel for you and them in this situation. Your loyalty to the company is commendable and the desire to not use other provider’s services is understandable. In this case though, it’s a necessary evil to restrict the right for an employee to use it’s own company’s services.
@Daryl – your item 2 – Business Expense. Yea that sucks, but cost of doing business for providers. They are providers after all and they could think out of the box to find legal ways to lower that cost.
One possible solution is they could make a deal with other VRS providers. Purple could easily partner with someone to provide services, at cost and not the normal rates, which would allow employees of each company to use the other’s services. The cost of this would be much lower than the heavy fine from the FCC, I guarantee. Getting bitter rivals to partner, is another story.
Thanks for the informative discussion. Good luck to you and the other Purple employees. I hope this can be resolved. I would hate to see hard working people lose their jobs.
Dear Disgruntled Former Employee (Alan Jr),
I am writing, perhaps a vain attempt, to nudge you back to your senses. As a former employee of Viable I saw things differently. To scrutinize and belittle does not make this (or you) any better. While you are busy patronizing others I am certain that you do not currently hold a position that pays you as you did. Indeed, I am seeing crab theory at its worst. You might want to consider polishing up your grammar before posting your foolish rantings.
Crabbily Yours,
Anonymous
You may find this website interesting….
http://fccruling.blogspot.com/2010/03/fcc-ruling-gives-me-no-confidence-in.html
Folks: I understand that it’s easy to blame the FCC or NECA for the current situation. The FCC may be viewed as arbitrary in demanding a payment within 5 days. Is that information true? Wouldn’t they have given advance warnings that VRS providers are not volunteering?
We need to take a look at the bigger picture. How or what had prompted the FCC to do such thing? It’s not like a FCC made up some rule out of the blue with overnight repercussions (like a 5 day window to pay up).
If we’re to look at Purple’s business practices for the past 3 or 4 years, you’d see that there are many VRS calls that may be considered inappropriate such as staff or contractor meetings using VRS for 1 or 2 hours on a daily basis. Or 3 or 4 times a week. Is that necessary? Apparently, FCC doesn’t see that as a necessary business practice, other than trying to artificially pump up VRS minutes.
Not only that, it did NOT come as a surprise to Purple. They were warned of that last summer of their questionable business practices. And FCC did warn them that they would need to pay back approximately $11 million dollars – and that was last fall (and soon right after, Purple decided to delist itself from the NASDAQ). So it wasn’t like a 5 day notice. Purple had the time.
If my memory serves me right, a coalition of telecommunication companies had sued NECA and FCC for failing to oversee the relay fund. As some of you have mentioned already, NECA collects the surcharge from all telephone companies. Don’t quote me on this as I’m trying to remember off the top of my head. With TRS, the NECA reimbursement has been around $90 million since the inception of relay services in 1990. Please keep in mind, this reimbursement is mostly for interstate or toll free calls (which would be around 10% to 20%), as state relay programs would be paying for intrastate calls (mostly 80% to 90%).
With VRS since 2002, the reimbursement has been over $900 million. Almost $1 billion in 8 short years. Thus the telephone companies have decreed: This does not look right. You (NECA and FCC) have not been watching the relay funds closely (such as with monitoring or auditing the billable minutes).
The VRS providers have nothing but themselves to blame on for this kind of “hole” that they have dug themselves. If they had followed the true purpose of VRS, then they would not be facing such a dilemma now. If they did not try to create artificial environments (such as internal staff meetings that happens way more too often than under “normal” circumstances. What i’d define as normal would be a staff meeting that takes place once every week, or every two weeks. and when we allocate one hour for the staff meeting, and we happen to finish the meeting early – i.e. 40 minutes, we end the call. instead of wasting time with non-relevant, non-business talk to use up the remaining 20 minutes just to get billable minutes). And this is one of very few factors as of why FCC is clamping down hard on the VRS providers to be able to show justification for their internal business practices.
I understand that it may have some side effects, however personal calls by employees or contractors of VRS providers would be billable. However, how would that work is to be determined. Just that we need to step back and find out why or how the FCC reached this kind of decision. It is not fair to make such comments without looking at the background that the VRS providers are not volunteering, and blame is quickly put on the FCC.
It is almost akin to a police officer ticketing you for something that you know you didn’t do. And you’d have to appeal the ticket. VRS providers would need to appeal with plenty of justification as of why some minutes should be billable, and they need to accept and absorb their losses (as with artificially inflated minutes that should not have happened in the first place). They gambled, and they are losing (as with right now). But the battle is far from over.
@Daryl-
I’m in full agreement with you.
@VRS Interpreter-
Thanks for pointing out the footnote. I took the liberty to read it more throughly, including the footnotes. Based on what I see, my argument still stands. While calls from home are compensable, calls from work, even if done for personal reasons rather than on behalf of my VRS employer, are not compensable. The end result is that the VRS employer will impose rules that considerably reduce, if not eliminate, personal usage of the VRS’s services while at work.
One commented even went as so far as to suggest using other VRS providers when making calls from work. What if my own VRS employer is my preferred VRS provider? The stigma of using a competitor’s VRS when being employed by a VRS provider would also serve to considerably discourage a person from using a VRS competitor’s products. What about loyalty to one’s employer? If that employee uses a competitor’s VRS, the VRS provider would make money out of it, thereby benefitting the competitor, and hurting the employee’s VRS employer– every cent gone to the competition is a cent lost.
How is this fair, when hearing employees of their respective telecommunication employers are permitted to use the employer’s own services to make calls, whether business or personal? It’s all about freedom of choice.
So much for functional equivalence.
@Dan A-
While I agree that all shady dealings should be brought to light, I have to beg to differ with you on the point that VRS was not meant to be a for profit business. It may have not been the intention, but in this world, it’s pretty much gone capitialism. I’m in support of VRS providers being in the business for profit– profit enables expansion, innovation, and greater hiring of deaf employees. If profit was eliminated, expansion, innovation would be also eliminated, and hiring would be severely constrained. However, I also agree with an (perhaps unintended) implication from your comment: if a VRS provider goes for-profit, then they should no longer rely on FCC, they should switch to a different business model. Then they’d be free to operate entirely on however they see fit, so long as it follows the letters of the law.
@Alan-
I have to disagree on whether Sorenson can be trusted. I used to work for them, and there were plenty of business practices by them that I questioned. That’s as much as I can say on that for that matter.
@Anonymous #1– excellent feedback. I disagree on whether it can be constitued as fraud, since the behavior in question was halted prior to the declaratory ruling. Making it retroactive causes it to transform into a logistical nightmare, not just for the agency, but for the VRS providers, VRS employees, as well as the consumers they serve. I’ve already explained my reasoning in a comment in a more recent post, so feel free to check that out if you’re interested. Thanks for the good luck wishes.
Re: Cost of doing business, there are actually two paradigms happening simultaneously:
1) telecommunications companies (those that actually are! – that’s another discussion, another time) that are required by the ADA to make their services accessible by doing it themselves, contracting someone to do it for them or deeming another carrier for themselves. Regardless of the choice all carriers pay into the fund.
Those carriers that choose to do it themselves also pay into the fund but also exercise some level of influence on the contribution factor by their own operations and they recoup their expenses and maybe some towards their contribution. There is a natural balance and economic force involved there that encourages efficiency and cost effectiveness because the provider is also paying into the fund.
The problem I see of “providers gone wild” is the influx of pseudo-telecommunications carriers or a carrier that actually provides a minimal number of public telephone lines to their customers (less than 10 according to public records). These pseudo-telecommunications companies are not paying “into” the fund therefore they do not care how much they receive “out” of the fund.
The certification program was never intended to allow the system to be gamed in this way. I know this is the case because I am the one who spent more than a year making the case to establish the certification program for a telephone company I started but unfortunately no longer involved with.
2) The few providers who are assuming the financial risk of offering relay when they could simply opt to join the group buying program (the fund). If everyone did that, then there would be no providers.
There is a risk being assumed by providers that all other telephone companies are not assuming by only contributing to the fund. The providers in essence become defacto contractors to the other carriers. In this instance, I believe the providers are right to expect a reward for their risk assumption and the other carriers owe it because as we can see from what the FCC is asking for there is a large monetary risk being assumed.
I know this analogy is going to sound simplistic, but I think it will create a better picture of what I mean. I borrow the analogy from similar techniques used to explain economics in Freakonomics books. (great books by the way and very interesting). In “( )” below I include the related concept to relay and VRS.
———-
“This Little Provider Went to the Market”
Imagine you and I worked together. Both of us had to pick up milk after work on the way home. We live beside each other. I ask you to pick up milk for me. (carrier decides to contribute only) We can’t remember how much it costs but think it is $2.00. (annual data collection, demand estimates and set rate)
I give you $2.00. (contribution factor to NECA)
You buy two gallons of milk at the store after work. (provider opted to contribute and provide relay)
Then, you arrive at my house with a gallon of milk for me and one for yourself. You find that my partner (another provider) has already gone shopping therefore I do not need the milk. (competitive marketplace for minutes).
You spent $4.00 when you only needed to spend $2.00 (provider could have opted to contribute only). The milk will go bad before you can use it. (payroll and capital expenditures to provide relay)
Instead, suppose I give you $2.00 and agree to pay you another $1.00 (reward) when you get to my house because I cannot contact my partner to tell him not to go shopping. I may not need the milk and you would be stuck with two gallons of milk (risk). At least half of the additional cost would be paid; you would only be out $1.00 instead of $2.00 (lack of efficiencies by a provider) You may decide to take the milk back to the store to get the $2.00 back. (efficiency of providers). Therefore you would be ahead by a $1.00 (reward).
You arrive to my house with the gallon of milk to find my partner has not gone shopping yet (consumer choice in marketplace). I take the gallon of milk I already paid for (provider reimbursed for costs). I also give you the additional $1.00. (reward for assuming the risk)
You would have received the extra $1.00 whether I needed the milk or not. You faced being stuck with two gallons of milk if I didn’t need it. (rate setting process – reasonable costs reimbursed).
However, you got me what I needed (satisfied the requirements of the rules) and you earned an extra dollar by helping me out. (performance + risk + reward).
Suppose that my brother (Deaf employees) is going to eat breakfast at my house tomorrow. My milk will be used (internal meetings not reimbursed) and I accept that cost.
If my brother goes out to eat should he have to take my milk to drink at the restaurant?
(personal calls and other calls via VRS that would otherwise be made without relay by a similarly situated hearing employee but for the Deaf employee’s disability)
No. The restaurant (marketplace and regulatory regime) will provide whatever he orders (consumer advocacy for functional equivalency).
——
The analogy can go on to further address many other topics but I think it creates an easy to understand parallel for the topics at hand right now.
Re: single provider or contracted provider by the FCC
Social mechanisms are utilized when there is a public duty that is the responsibility of the public. Social mechanisms are not used when there is a duty to the publicthat is a private responsibility.
For example, we owe a duty to each other for safety and civil society; a public duty. We fulfill that responsibility through our system of police and fire departments.
There is no reason for society to fulfill legal duties under the ADA of a telephone company. The same that society does not pay for a hotel to offer a TTY to Deaf guests.
I understand the law to say it is the responsibility of the telephone company to fulfill its duty to the public my making its services accessible to people with disabilities. The FCC said the same thing in the order establishing the certification program and many other places.