Fed: Stops payment for many vrs calls

D

darkage

New Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
0
Got email:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STOPS PAYMENT FOR MANY VRS CALLS

FCC Action Follows Fraud Arrests and Leaves VRS Providers in a Bind


Deafweekly
January 30, 2010


WASHINGTON, DC -- The federal government has stopped reimbursing Video Relay Service (VRS) providers for many types of phone calls that VRS companies are still legally required to handle.

The Federal Communications Commission has not paid VRS providers for certain types of calls since July 2009, said the National Association of the Deaf in a news release issued Thursday.

Among the calls deemed ineligible for reimbursement are any calls made to a recorded message.

The FCC "believes these are not calls involving a hearing individual," said the NAD. "This interpretation defies logic, is inconsistent with FCC rules and is erroneous."

The FCC took action in the wake of a wide-ranging financial fraud involving seven VRS companies that to date has resulted in 26 arrests and two guilty pleas.

Defendants in the scheme are accused of making phony calls to long voice recordings to inflate their figures and collect more money from the VRS fund, which is financed by fees added onto most phone bills.

The FCC responded by deciding, without input from the deaf community, that certain types of VRS calls -- including the kind that deaf people make every day -- were probably fake and thus ineligible for reimbursement.

These types of calls include:

-- Calls that connect to automated call response or interactive voice response (IVR) systems
-- Calls that are connected to recorded communication, such as that provided by government agencies
-- Multiple calls from a single videophone/VRS number
-- Multiple calls to a single telephone number
-- Calls to technical support services (i.e., Blackberry and T-Mobile during a service outage)
-- Calls connected to telephone conference call service numbers


But these are typical phone calls that everyone makes, said the NAD, and current FCC rules require them to be handled just like any other call.

At issue is "functional equivalency," the idea that deaf people should be able to make any kind of phone call they want, when they want, just like hearing people.

Several VRS providers and consumer groups have joined the NAD in asking the FCC to clarify the rules for when and how a VRS call can be denied reimbursement.

As of now, VRS providers say they are in the impossible position of being required to process all calls received and being denied compensation for handling many of those calls.

The NAD is asking community members to file a comment with the FCC.

To do so, visit Submit a Filing and type 03-123 in the box marked, "Proceeding Number." Enter your name and contact information and tell the FCC how you use VRS and why it is important to you.

Also say: "I support the Petition to Initiate a Notive and Comment Rulemaking Proceeding filed by the National Association of the Deaf."
Click to expand...


Source: FCC Actions Block Consumer VRS Calls | National Association of the Deaf
 
FYI: I tried it and it isnt working (cannot submit my filing) Perhaps I did it incorrectly. Can you expand it 'step by step' how to do it for me... and others? thank.
 
dragonman3000 said:
does it apply all vrs company like sorenson or hovrs or viable vision?
Click to expand...

Yes it applies to all of the VRS companies. Problem is: Since Sorenson has about 80-85% market share, they can easily absorb those costs whereas the smaller VRS companies cannot......
 
I think its funny this is the first time I really have seen NAD take big action on something.

Oh, its just a coincidence that one of the executives of Purple communications is married to the NAD CEO......
 
Well, NAD is just hollering for an even playing field with hearing people who make those kinds of calls that the FCC is now(without public meetings)not allowing. I think the FCC is just reeling from the current scandals and will eventually make things right again. And if other companies such Purple get caught up and get snagged, well, I'm not gonna shed a tear for them. :lol:
 
Tousi said:
Well, NAD is just hollering for an even playing field with hearing people who make those kinds of calls that the FCC is now(without public meetings)not allowing. I think the FCC is just reeling from the current scandals and will eventually make things right again. And if other companies such Purple get caught up and get snagged, well, I'm not gonna shed a tear for them. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah... My point being:

If the CEO wasn't married to a VRS executive - Would the NAD have done much?
 
posts from hell said:
Yep, now what would it take for the NAD to actually do something on other issues instead of lollygagging?
Click to expand...

You got me there...I mull over that from time to time...they sure have distanced themselves from the grassroots.
 
I just spoke with some of my friend about this issue. He said some VRS providers may not provide them if they call comcast, sprint, tmobile etc but I found out that Sorenson still willing to pay with their own pocket if you call tmobile, sprint, comcast, twc.. wow, so sweet for Sorenson.. but it will hurt another VRS providers.

Now I expected only 2 or 3 VRS providers in the USA. I think too many VRS providers are just dont need.
 
posts from hell said:
Yep, now what would it take for the NAD to actually do something on other issues instead of lollygagging?
Click to expand...

Another thing...I think the deaf world is so disillusioned by the NAD for whatever reasons that their membership is very small so they have to pick and choose their advocacy issues because of a lack of money.

They need a new and revamped face and attract a swelling membership.
 
Back
Top