You love VRS, don’t you? It’s nearly achieved, for hundreds of thousands of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, what the ADA calls “functional equivalency.” That term means that the deaf person’s calling experience should be as similar as realistically possible to a hearing person picking up the phone, dialing, and speaking into the handset. We just turn on the TV, dial the VRS company, give them the number we want to call, and the conversation begins.
It may be free for you, but it does not come cheaply. There is a vast infrastructure of interpreters, technicians, million-dollar networks, training professionals, corporate officers, and support personnel all working together to deliver you this service. However, you don’t pay a dime for this VRS service.
It is all paid for by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) via a price quote called the “VRS Rate.” That’s how much the FCC pays a VRS company, per minute, for all the calls from deaf to hearing that they handle.
Now the VRS Rate is in jeopardy. The FCC is considering slashing the interpreter payment per minute by 8% and is thinking about eliminating outreach reimbursements.
There are many innovations that VRS companies want to put into play: increasing inoperability among different VRS providers and devices; increasing speed of answer; recruiting and training certified deaf interpreters to assist those callers with different or difficult-to-understand signing skills; and providing full access to emergency/911 services. These all cost money and the FCC should pay more, not less, under these circumstances.
So let’s write to the FCC! Let’s make sure they hear us out and leave the VRS rate unchanged.
It is best if you write your own e-mail or letter, but we have an example for your use. Please feel free just to copy the letter if it is easier for you. For instructions and the sample letter, go to http://www.deafdc.com/blog/fccvrs.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
46 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
A couple of clarifications here:
First, the FCC does not ultimately pay for the relay services, including VRS. It comes from the TRS Fund, and it is administered by the NECA. We all, hearing and deaf alike, do pay for the services through certain charges on our phone bills, either wireless or landline, pagers and the like [interstate service only].
Second, the fund is designed to pay for reasonable costs of providing the service, from the time when the call is made to when its completed. The TRS Fund is not authorized to pay for features that goes beyond the functional equivalency mandate or outreach.
Third, if the funding is really a problem, why are there more VRS providers than ever before? Recently, the FCC approved Snap Technologies as a new VRS provider.
To me, I think $6.16 a minute for VRS is fairly reasonable. But then again, I could be wrong.
I really dont see that an 8 percent cut would put VRS in jeopardy. They get like $7 a minute and that means $420 per hour. We have a number of competing VRS companies and some of them are already addressing the rate cut. One has done it by cutting the excessive administration baggage and I picked up wind another is planning on outsourcing it offshore to cut costs.
Do these changes seem good Richard? What gets cut next time?
Change either positive or negative is always good.
Like Gally?
Thank you Adam for this warning.
8% per minute isn’t too drastic a change, I doubt the interpreters would up and quit over it- it’s like gas prices, it’s hovering around $3.00 but we still drive around in gas-guzzlin’ vehicles. (I’d love to drive a hybrid or a fuel cell one but the higher price is rather daunting. Perhaps I should look into vegetable oil fuel…come out smelling like fries). However, Regina has a point, sometimes one small cut is actually part of a plan calling for progressive slashing, so we must be viligant in letting them know we won’t stand for a decline in quality and quantity of service.
I have to confess this struck a chord in me. We’re getting a free service at the expense of many lower-qualified deaf people who don’t have the same resources as many of the deafdc.com readers have.
I live in Cincinnati and I’m seeing firsthand at how the VRS services have hit the deaf population at an extreme light by taking away the talented community interpreters.
Let me be clear so I won’t seem like I’m expressing sour grapes. First, I do not fault the interpreters leaving to greener pastures with better benefits, more pay, better insurance coverage, etc. Second, it doesn’t happen often where interpreters are highly sought after and are high in demand so I have no interest in knocking them down. Many of them have worked hard in school and have put in many thankless hours for their clients only to be treated like subhuman people. So, the interpreters are finally getting their day in the sun and that’s been long overdue.
Yet, since those companies require qualified interpreters, consider the unspoken consequence. Yep, the deaf clients in the community that need interpreters get unqualified interpreters. When I use the term “unqualified” interpreters, I mean those that don’t interpret, they omit five words for every word, fill in the blanks with the wrong kind of information, or clearly reach to explain something that does not make sense. What’s more, those interpreters being asked to interpret in corporate, legal, or medical environments.
In the past two months, two interpreters with courtroom training and legal certifications are now working for a VRS company. Who gets the shaft? Yes, the deaf clients that come in seeking for help and comprehension about what’s going to happen to them.
Which is better? Being able to have a qualified interpreter via VRS and feel like you are really communicating over the phone? Or being out there at work or official settings with a qualified interpreter and feeling like you’re really reaching out to the people and dispelling myths and stereotypes?
At the last NAD banquet in Cincinnati, people from VRS organizations were actually trolling around and giving business cards to the interpreters and advising them to leave the agencies and work for them. How do you think I felt about that?
So that said – if VRS is bitching about 8% decrease per minute, then it’s hard for me to express sympathy for them.
The thing with VRS: we want the interpreters in the community AND we want them when we dial in to Sorenson.
Good line. This is one scenario where I’d be in favor of human cloning! =)
Yeah. Right now it sucks for a lot of deaf people who can’t afford VRS. No matter how much people “joke” about SSI (which has helped many deaf people get started in life) there’s plenty of our forever-younger-clanschildren who desperately need the help - and when they go to get it, they no longer have interpreting support.
While we, who can usually get by on our own or with Relay, take advantage of the service… *sigh* It’s tough.
Personally, I have no interest in working VRS - I prefer a “real” 3-D interaction - but I can definitely sympathize with the interpreters who choose it. The benefits to working VRS are numerous: you know where you’re going every day, you have a set work schedule, you are guaranteed hours every week, you often get a sign-on bonus, and you get paid more hourly than community interpreters. Really, wouldn’t you take that switch too? What a great working environment!
I don’t think there is an easy solution to this. Interpreting agencies don’t offer community terps much incentive to stay there as opposed to going to VRS. Perhaps more recognition of how hard it is to be a community terp would be helpful. (Everything from not having prep time for assignments to putting a lot of miles on your car, things like that.) But it’s not going to be an easy fix…I’d love to hear suggested solutions.
I would feel better about sending a letter or protesting this decision if I heard from the companies or interpreters that this would put VRS in jeopardy. I echo many sentiments here that an 8% cut is nothing to scream over. I, too, have noticed the outgrowth of many VRS companines and I suspect that running a VRS business is an extremely lucrative one.
If this is the first time which the rate has been cut (which I suspect it is) then I’m even more ambivalent about it. On one hand I want the VRS providers to have plenty of incentive to provide good VRS services but on the other hand I don’t want them freely profitting and getting “fat” over the VRS rate. $420 an hour is an considerable amount of money no matter how you look at it.
I also wonder at your motivations for posting this, Adam — have you done sufficient research in the other end of the spectrum? Like with any government lobbying effort spearheaded by companies, I wonder if there are clearer perspectives to be had by objective research. For example: The fact is there are many VRS companies, what need is there for outreach when they can throw webcams and iSights left and right?
http://www.sorenson.com/press/.....p?pr_id=79
Seriously, do they have to be hurting? Or do we let them get cut until they ARE hurting then scream foul play. I guess I don’t get it.
I guess I’m just skeptical of companies these days, when they’ve cried wolf so many times. For me, I just want to see more evidence that the pay cut would indeed affect VRS services as opposed to not being able to roll in quite as much money in their McMansions. (not that they are, I don’t even know who or what the corporate governance folks are behind Sorenson, Sprint, etc.)
The red flag to me is the increasing number of VRS companies. Companies naturally flock to wherever they are able to profit themselves and their shareholders. So yes, I do have a healthy level of skepticism for the VRS industry’s “crying out” for help on this issue and trying to get Deaf people to contact the government on their behalf.
For instance, I haven’t heard of any calls from Sorenson or any other VRS provider to contact the government on some other Deaf Communication policy issue. Just when it affects THEIR bottom line.
Bobby- wouldn’t they just use paid lobbyists to take care of that? Instead of leaving it up to their deaf customers to do the “talking”?
Well, they probably are. I don’t know whether they are using lobbyists. But there’s nothing better than having their Deaf customers complain for them because it legitimizes the issue (whether it deserves to be so or not). I don’t know enough about this to put my tacit approval on “fighting back.” So I’m asking for more facts about the entire thing–if anybody knows.
Bobby, no… not the first time… here’s some historical perspective with the reimbursement rate over the years..
July 2000-September 2000: $5.143
October 2000-June 2001: $5.539
July 2001: $7.449
August 2001-June 2002: $9.614
July 2002-June 2002: $17.044
July 2003-August 2003: $7.751
September 2003-June 2004: $8.854
July 2004-June 2005: $7.293
July 2005-June 2006: $6.644
Proposed July 2006-June 2007: $6.16
Thanks Christian. That’s helpful information.
Actually, there is a great deal of need for VRS outreach. As a former videophone installer working for Sprint, I worked at a deaf expo in Anaheim. You wouldn’t believe how many people I introduced to VRS for the first time in their lives. This was about a year and half ago.
I installed videophones for a few deaf expo visitors following the event; these people were involved in the deaf community or their children went to schools with deaf programs, and somehow they still hadn’t gotten around to having a videophone in their homes.
It may seem like everyone knows what VRS is and has one (or two!) videophones in their living rooms, but that’s not the case. In fact, regina’s link above says only 10% of the deaf population has VRS service. Outreach is a pretty important component of the video relay service.
I’m not denying that outreach isn’t important or needed. My question should have been posed like this: Now that we (sort of) have a glut of VRS companies all competing for the same piece of pie — deaf customers with broadband — I’d argue that perhaps the market for vrs is possibly approaching a level of saturation.
The U.S. has 11-12 broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. You said it’s about 10% of the deaf population that knows about VRS. That sounds about proportional to the national average and therefore VRS penetration is arguably saturated.
But given that broadband penetration rates with the Deaf are probably significantly higher than the general populace, let’s say 30 out of 100 Deaf have broadband (this is triple the national average). Then VRS has 1/3 of the market and needs further outreach.
Either way, I’m not arguing against outreach. I’m arguing for more FACTS about the situation as opposed to vague generalizations about “Goodness me, the VRS companies are complaining. Let’s run to their help!” without a good list of facts to back them up.
The whole situation around Gallaudet has increased my B.S. threshold to a level where I really do want to see solid facts before I make any kind of decision supporting one group of people over another.
And I further argue that bloggers who blog about topics like this have an responsibility (if they want to maintain credibility) to back up their call to actions with hard facts and reasonable justifications. Listing VRS innovations then in the same breath saying they should be paid more… Well, paint me a skeptic.
If its as you say, that outreach is a significant issue, then wouldn’t you want to say “Less features, more outreach?” I feel this issue is far more complex than $6.64 to $6.16.
The cut to the outreach fund is significant because that directly leads to jobs for the community (i.e. employment for deaf/hh installers and tradeshow personnel). That was how these VRS companies first generated revenue; Deaf/hh persons got jobs and in turn drove traffic to the companies they represented, and that led to these companies employing more deaf/hh folks.
Today, though, most people of the deafdc.com demographic may no longer need outreach. VRS companies are now able to communicate directly with them via firmware updates (e.g. Sorenson) and mass media means (automated notifications when you open an IM connection or open a Web text connection). But the deaf/hh population is unique in that outreach should be ongoing; tomorrow there will be more newly deafened people. Also, tomorrow there might be new relay features. The burden on informing us all should not fall on local deaf service centers receiving state/federal funding, but on these companies’ sales force. Also, there are those Deaf/HH individuals who are still with misconceptions regarding relay services; they still need basic consumer education.
Lastly, if the VRS rate were to be cut only by taking away the portion earmarked for outreach, it would do little to the companies’ bottom line and a lot more to deaf/hh staffing levels.
So, the outreach portion of the VRS rate should be kept intact. If the NECA wants it whittled, it could do so by reducing funding for research and development or interpreter staffing (which would help level the employment field for these overpaid interpreters and for which these companies should be paying on their own anyway), or it could reduce outreach funding by 15% instead of 100%.
Cutting outreach cuts outreach. It means the folks who don’t yet have vrs WON’T that means the house bound, those without active support networks. How about not cutting anything, rather than choosing among outreach or, the interpreters. It seems interpreters are like teachers, folks often begrudge them their incomes. I’ve never understood that.
How true about the “digital” gap within the economically infeasible (low income) deaf people on the accessibility of VRS.
I do not see any quasi-private and public program to ensure that the “low income’ deaf people have the equal accessiblity to the VRS provider.
The Clinton adminstration created the “Link Up America” program for economically defranchised individuals to get the phone service(s) hooked up. I haven’t seen any latest incentives or listing of the “Link Up America” in any phone books so far.
I haven’t check out whether the Bush adminstration abolish or water down the government-sponsored program (”Link-Up America”)for getting the economically and politically defranchised populace. Bushities have done the termination of federal sponsorship of policing and urban crime reduction grants.
Many ASL interpreters privately confessed to me how they really hate interpreting for the VRS customers due to such arrogance and unreasonable demands upon them. For example, the deaf VRS customer would make a sacarastic comment - “You could not understand my ASL!” “You should be fired!”
The reality of two-dimensonial visual communication thru digtial line usually have been really difficult for interpreters to read the three-dimensional language (ex. ASL).
I undy that some deaf people would not possibly get the VRS service due to the bad credit history. Alot of them are not at fault for having the bad credit (for example, I already paid off my student loans pretty long time, but the U.S. Department of Education still say that I owe them. I already tried for past nine years to resolve this issue. I have all proofs of payments in lump sum thru cashier checks).
RLM
Yes, there’s a program. Its called Universal Service.
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/univers.....lcome.html
Just a comment in regards to the “8% is nothing” sentiment here:
8% of $10 is 80 cents
8% of $100 is $8
8% of $1,000 is $80
8% of $10,000 is $800
8% of $100,000 is $8,000
8% of $1,000,000 is $80,000
8% of $10,000,000 is $800,000
8% of $100,000,000 is $8,000,000
And so on…you guys get the idea now…
It depends on how much the 8% is in real dollars. I’d estimate that the FCC pays the VRS companies somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million…8% of that is somehwere around 800K..that’s probably the salary of 20 Interpreters (assuming they make 40K a year).
20 Interpreters is a lot if you ask me….
That’s 20 interpreters going back to the deaf communities that need them.
Which means 20 fewer interpreters when you call into VRS. That’s longer hold times. And, quite possibly less skilled interpreters when you finally do connect.
The deaf communities rather see the quality interpreters in the courtrooms, hospitals, classrooms, and doctor and lawyer offices.
I agree…except that they also want them in the vrs centers when they call in there. It’s a catch 22 of sorts.
And… suggesting cutting interpreter pay at VRS centers is not the answer to the problem.
This so funny I’m going to copy and paste:
Joe Dirt
(#4407) | 2006-05-22 05:59:58
Fernandes Resigns as Deaf Mayor, Appoints Blue Ribbon Commission To Replace Her by Joe Dirt
On Saturday, May 22nd over a plate of hasty lasagna at her suburban Washington, DC home, Gallaudet University President-Elect Jane K. Fernandes announced her retirement as mayor of the Deaf World.
“It seems since it was announced that I will be the 9th President of Gallaudet University, homegrown, grasssroots “been on SSDI their whole life” deaf people seem to think I am the Mayor of Deafville. Nothing could be further from the truth”.
When pressed on, it seemed she had more to say.
“These poor unfortunate souls, some of whom have NEVER interacted with a hearing person or held down a full time paying job, confuse the President of Gallaudet University with someone who actually gives a crap about them”.
Fernandes went on to explain about the actual duties and responsibilities of the University Presidential office, nothing of which appeared to have anything to do with international deaf people, or even deaf people from across the United States, aside from being able to offer advanced college degrees to deaf people (of whom very few, less than 4% of the available pool, take advantage of.)
“Why the affinity for Gallaudet University?”, Fernandes volunteered. “It’s very simple: they have no place else to go. They don’t have much of a life to begin with. If they’re not getting drunk, high, or having meaningless sexual one night stands with a complete stranger who has a sexual disease infection, they’re certainly not going to a University classroom.”
To replace her as the Mayor of Deafville, Fernandes announced the appointment of a blue ribbon, all deaf panel/commission to find a new Mayor of Deafville called R.A.P.E.:
Retire
Aged
Personnel
Early
Old **** Gallaudet University professors such as Gina Oliva, MJ Bievnenu, and Elaine Jacobowotiz, all of whom are so old they can only eat applesauce and strained peas, have gleefully endorsed the idea that they now have a purpose in life to find the new Mayor of Deafville and have put off their plans to commit Hari-Kari together.
All 3 issued a joint statement: “We are excited to be RAPE’d and look forward to picking a new Mayor of Deafville! Our first choice would be Gill Eastman, if he is still alive. And if he is dead, we will just hire an embalmer and taxidermist to prop him up and attach some wires to his hands and arms to make it look like he is still using sign language.”
If I had a choice, VRS would be thrown out, at first it was a great idea and I supported it wholefully. Until, it became abused. The community fights for equality amongst hearing and deaf yet a hearing person can’t freely get into school and drop out after homecoming.
Yes, VRS seemed great until I heard people complaining of interpreter shortages in critical areas. I’ve had attorneys, hospitals, even courtrooms call our office complaining of not being able find interpreters from the interpreting agencies they once relied on.
And that’s definitely problematic. Does your office use VRS?
On the flip side - as ironic as this sounds - the state of Florida is considering building up a new school for the deaf in Miami, mainly due to the shortage of interpreters. They are no longer able to provide interpreting services to every deaf student in hearing/mainstreamed programs.
The community fights for equality amongst hearing and deaf yet a hearing person can’t freely get into school and drop out after homecoming.
porkypig - care to explain?
well, it’s common knowledge that with funding from their state’s VR agency, some freshmen will just go to gally, party their asses off and then withdraw right after HC because the fun is over.
but this point is totally irrelevant to VRS tho.
bingo! Moreover, I’m quite confident that if it was available to the other side that they can get a free ticket to school, they’d act the same way.
what can you do? work harder and pay taxes….
Would the deaf community accept user fees from VRS for using their service? I could see this as an option down the road to keep VRS alive. I’m sure it’ll raise many questions and issues on its own however.
The only reason why deaf folks do not pay for IP Relay and VRS is because, due to the nature of the Internet, the location of the originating call cannot be identified, so it is not possible to determine the appropriate and equivalent costs of such calls.
Once that happens with ENUM*, deaf people will have to pay for those calls.
For traditional relay [with TTYs], it’s a different story and we are billed for those calls.
*ENUM is a standard adopted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that uses the domain name system (DNS) to map telephone numbers to Web addresses or uniform resource locators (URL). The goal of the ENUM standard is to provide a single number to replace the multiple numbers and addresses for an individual’s home phone, business phone, fax, cell phone, and e-mail.
I think my answer was a bit muddled. I mean, once every single individual gets their own ENUM/number [associated with email addresses or whatever], such calls will become billable and we will be expected to pay, no question. This is what the FCC ultimately wants. VRS and IP-Relay were never intended to be free services forever.
“ENUM/number [associated with email addresses or whatever], such calls will become billable and we will be expected to pay” it is new to me I didnt know about ENUM .
This is interesting. I’ve heard about this but have not read much into it yet.
But I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard for VRS providers to create a login system on the VP devices itself where users create their own account and provide payment method. The information would be encrypted for security reasons.
The question remains - would the deaf community accept the idea of paying for VRS service?
I wouldn’t mind if it would ensure VRS’ survival.
Yes it can be a good idea for the ‘D‘eafies to be paying for the VRS services themselves because theyre the ones that got the good paying jobs in the sub-classification. VRS ‘co-payment’ should be set on a sliding scale based on the user’s income.
Its from my understanding that Internet Protocol/Internet connection does not have additional fees other than paying internet services provider each month. Video to Video connection is the same way. If the VRS system starts to charge the D/deaf customers for usage then it will be a problem of getting the D/deaf to use it.
You pretty much do have to pay more for VRS services. At the normal rates, my video quality sucks, and nobody else can go online when I’m using the VP, because it eats up all of the bandwidth. So I gotta pay 40 more bucks to increase the bandwidth.