FCC to regulate VRI?

DavidJ · 03-29-2010, 06:09 PM

I heard a rumor that the FCC is looking to regulate Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). Anyone else know of this?

pandaatv36 · 03-30-2010, 11:11 AM

DavidJ...

its highly doubtful... VRI has do nothing with telecommuncation accessiblity that are mandated in ADA title 4.

VRI is more of providing alternative interpretping services in different format and settings, wheras there is no interpreter available locally.

VRS is under the TRS umbrella... while VRI has completely no involvement in that TRS umbrella.

Cheers!

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandaatv36

DavidJ...

its highly doubtful... VRI has do nothing with telecommuncation accessiblity that are mandated in ADA title 4.

VRI is more of providing alternative interpretping services in different format and settings, wheras there is no interpreter available locally.

VRS is under the TRS umbrella... while VRI has completely no involvement in that TRS umbrella.

Cheers!

What he said.

/thread.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 11:37 AM

Hmmm, and why isn't VRI under the TRS umbrella?

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Hmmm, and why isn't VRI under the TRS umbrella?

Because it's interpreting. Not Telephone calls.

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 11:46 AM

Because VRI use professional sign language interpreters and you are billed for their service. You get quality service rather than be a cheapo one. Using VRS could get you some questionable interpreters. Not exactly a good thing.

http://www.accessamericavri.com/pdf%...20Overview.pdf

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Because VRI use professional sign language interpreters and you are billed for their service. You get quality service rather than be a cheapo one. Using VRS could get you some questionable interpreters. Not exactly a good thing.

http://www.accessamericavri.com/pdf%...20Overview.pdf

I see, PFH and Kokonut; I guess I thought TRS paid for those interpreters. Or somebody....in the case of a doctor's office or hospital, does the Dr or hospital pay for it?

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I see, PFH and Kokonut; I guess I thought TRS paid for those interpreters. Or somebody....in the case of a doctor's office or hospital, does the Dr or hospital pay for it?

The clients that arent deaf usually pay for it. Every once in a while the Deaf requests and pays for the interpreters.

chip · 03-30-2010, 12:00 PM

VRI is an alternative option when a live interpreter is not available. Just like any accommodation, VRI can not be a forced option. Make sure you advocate for quality service every time you have the need of using interpreting services.

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 12:03 PM

VRI is a legitimate service where billing isn't being charged to the federal govt in the same manner as VRS but to either to private individuals, company, or govt agency.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

The clients that arent deaf usually pay for it. Every once in a while the Deaf requests and pays for the interpreters.

This is certainly all new to me. What do you mean by "clients who are not deaf"? What makes VRI interpreters any better, more skilled, whatever...than the VRS interpreters? So a hospital or wherever TRI is offered is a private business and gets around the ADA? I'm confused.....

chip · 03-30-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I see, PFH and Kokonut; I guess I thought TRS paid for those interpreters. Or somebody....in the case of a doctor's office or hospital, does the Dr or hospital pay for it?

Whoever makes the request pays for the service. Many hospitals and clinics have VRI software and hardware available for emergencies and/or last minute requests. In that case, they would pay for VRI services. If a deaf consumer has a specific need that would require using an interpreter and the other party that they are doing business with is not obligated or otherwise responsible for providing the accommodation, the deaf consumer would then arrange and pay for the VRI (or live) interpreting service.

chip · 03-30-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

This is certainly all new to me. What do you mean by "clients who are not deaf"? What makes VRI interpreters any better, more skilled, whatever...than the VRS interpreters? So a hospital or wherever TRI is offered is a private business and gets around the ADA? I'm confused.....

With VRI you do not get a random interpreter from a VRS company. You can request and schedule a specific interpreter to represent you. Therefore, the quality of services are in your hands (no pun intended)...

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip

Whoever makes the request pays for the service. Many hospitals and clinics have VRI software and hardware available for emergencies and/or last minute requests. In that case, they would pay for VRI services. If a deaf consumer has a specific need that would require using an interpreter and the other party that they are doing business with is not obligated or otherwise responsible for providing the accommodation, the deaf consumer would then arrange and pay for the VRI (or live) interpreting service.

Cheaper than a lawsuit.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip

With VRI you do not get a random interpreter from a VRS company. You can request and schedule a specific interpreter to represent you. Therefore, the quality of services are in your hands (no pun intended)...

Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?

yea.. But in places like ... mccook, nebraska.. There arent many qualified interpreters to choose from.

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 12:25 PM

Which leaves VRI a much desirable option.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

yea.. But in places like ... mccook, nebraska.. There arent many qualified interpreters to choose from.

Ok, ok, point taken but would McCook have VRI?

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Ok, ok, point taken but would McCook have VRI?

High speed internet and a webcam is all you need. Hospitals are more than likely to have these stuff.

Also sorenson has their VP's in pretty much every hospital (not the "Deaf VPs") for the doctors to share information with eachother.

My experience with Interperters in middle of nowhere has been impressive, especially in Nebraska too.

I had to go to ER once on a drive from western Nebraska to Eastern Nebraska/Iowa.. The interpreters' father just had died, and still showed up an hour later because she was the only qualified interpreter.

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 12:34 PM

The one-who-shall-not-be-named is, I think, undertaking a lawsuit against a hospital for communication failure in the death of a family member. Not sure if that is the case but I'm sure there are cases when shoddy interpereting services (non-VRI) had unfavorable results.

posts from hell · 03-30-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

The one-who-shall-not-be-named is, I think, undertaking a lawsuit against a hospital for communication failure in the death of a family member. Not sure if that is the case but I'm sure there are cases when shoddy interpereting services (non-VRI) had unfavorable results.

Plenty of cases, hear of them all the times. Even in Courts.

Thats why the CDI thing is growing right now.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

High speed internet and a webcam is all you need. Hospitals are more than likely to have these stuff.

Also sorenson has their VP's in pretty much every hospital (not the "Deaf VPs") for the doctors to share information with eachother.

My experience with Interperters in middle of nowhere has been impressive, especially in Nebraska too.

I had to go to ER once on a drive from western Nebraska to Eastern Nebraska/Iowa.. The interpreters' father just had died, and still showed up an hour later because she was the only qualified interpreter.

Thanks, PFH; as soon as I clicked enter with my previous comment/question, I knew it was the wrong thing to say/ask, lol. Of course the VRI interpreter could be coming from any where! Good that you have gotten good services.....

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 12:38 PM

With thanks to technology, the key to help level the playing fields out there.

chip · 03-30-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

This is certainly all new to me. What do you mean by "clients who are not deaf"? What makes VRI interpreters any better, more skilled, whatever...than the VRS interpreters? So a hospital or wherever TRI is offered is a private business and gets around the ADA? I'm confused.....

Of course, when the hospital or clinic (or whoever) pays for the services, you have less control over quality. Same with VRS, most companies have highly qualified interpreters. The odds of getting a highly qualified interpreter would depend on which company you choose to place a VRS call through and what their ratio of novice/intermediate/master level interpreters are.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip

Of course, when the hospital or clinic (or whoever) pays for the services, you have less control over quality. Same with VRS, most companies have highly qualified interpreters. The odds of getting a highly qualified interpreter would depend on which company you choose to place a VRS call through and what their ratio of novice/intermediate/master level interpreters are.

Is that something the lawmakers overlooked?

chip · 03-30-2010, 12:53 PM

[QUOTE=Tousi;1564301]Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?[/QUOTE

Exactly... VRI should not replace live interpreting. In hospitals and clinics it is more of a "better than nothing" option. Usually it is used for triage and until a live interpreter can show up. ADA law is clear that accommodations can not be forced upon a person. However, the doctors and nurses have rights too. They can insist on having an interpreter even if the deaf client would prefer to use a friend or family member.

Interesting that more and more spoken language interpreting is utilizing VRI since most of the information we convey is through non-verbal communication.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 12:55 PM

[quote=chip;1564347]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?[/QUOTE

Exactly... VRI should not replace live interpreting. In hospitals and clinics it is more of a "better than nothing" option. Usually it is used for triage and until a live interpreter can show up. ADA law is clear that accommodations can not be forced upon a person. However, the doctors and nurses have rights too. They can insist on having an interpreter even if the deaf client would prefer to use a friend or family member.

Interesting that more and more spoken language interpreting is utilizing VRI since most of the information we convey is through non-verbal communication.

Thanks, Chip!

kokonut · 03-30-2010, 01:03 PM

There is no forcing of accomodation if VRI is the only one available especially if time is of essence or that there are no reliable live interpreters nearby. The ADA is about reasonable accomodation.

A good read here.
News for ASL Interpreters VRI ? The Best Option?

chip · 03-30-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Is that something the lawmakers overlooked?

Not sure if I understand all of the context of your question... I would suggest that all industries are (should be) consumer driven. Laws should regulate, not mandate business practices. If you are not happy with the services you receive from one company, try another.

Can I expect Ronald McDonald to be responsible for my eating habits? Should the lawmakers mandate that they make caloric information available? What about making it illegal to sell foods that are high in fat/sugar/carbohydrates...? If I choose to eat unhealthy foods, there are natural consequences for my choices. I may be happier sucking down a chocolate shake with my super-sized value meal. Or I may prefer to buy the salad shaker with fat-free splenda dressing...

The point is, we as consumers need to remember that we drive the trends in the market based on our own habitual practices.

Tousi · 03-30-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chip

Not sure if I understand all of the context of your question... I would suggest that all industries are (should be) consumer driven. Laws should regulate, not mandate business practices. If you are not happy with the services you receive from one company, try another.

Can I expect Ronald McDonald to be responsible for my eating habits? Should the lawmakers mandate that they make caloric information available? What about making it illegal to sell foods that are high in fat/sugar/carbohydrates...? If I choose to eat unhealthy foods, there are natural consequences for my choices. I may be happier sucking down a chocolate shake with my super-sized value meal. Or I may prefer to buy the salad shaker with fat-free splenda dressing...

The point is, we as consumers need to remember that we drive the trends in the market based on our own habitual practices.

Sorry....for example oversight on the quality of interpreters....certified, etc....the whole ball of wax. Is that too much to ask?

03-29-2010, 06:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
DavidJ Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 22	FCC to regulate VRI? I heard a rumor that the FCC is looking to regulate Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). Anyone else know of this?

03-30-2010, 11:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Because VRI use professional sign language interpreters and you are billed for their service. You get quality service rather than be a cheapo one. Using VRS could get you some questionable interpreters. Not exactly a good thing. http://www.accessamericavri.com/pdf%...20Overview.pdf __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-30-2010, 12:00 PM	#9 (permalink)
chip Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 55	VRI is an alternative option when a live interpreter is not available. Just like any accommodation, VRI can not be a forced option. Make sure you advocate for quality service every time you have the need of using interpreting services. __________________ Chip Royce IWRelay VP: iwrelay.tv iChat/AIM: Add "IWRelay" to your buddy list More info: www.iwrelay.com

03-30-2010, 12:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	VRI is a legitimate service where billing isn't being charged to the federal govt in the same manner as VRS but to either to private individuals, company, or govt agency. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-30-2010, 12:25 PM	#17 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Which leaves VRI a much desirable option. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-30-2010, 11:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
pandaatv36 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 35	DavidJ... its highly doubtful... VRI has do nothing with telecommuncation accessiblity that are mandated in ADA title 4. VRI is more of providing alternative interpretping services in different format and settings, wheras there is no interpreter available locally. VRS is under the TRS umbrella... while VRI has completely no involvement in that TRS umbrella. Cheers!

03-30-2010, 11:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,798	Hmmm, and why isn't VRI under the TRS umbrella?

03-30-2010, 12:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	The one-who-shall-not-be-named is, I think, undertaking a lawsuit against a hospital for communication failure in the death of a family member. Not sure if that is the case but I'm sure there are cases when shoddy interpereting services (non-VRI) had unfavorable results. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-30-2010, 12:38 PM	#23 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	With thanks to technology, the key to help level the playing fields out there. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-30-2010, 12:53 PM	#26 (permalink)
chip Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 55	[QUOTE=Tousi;1564301]Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?[/QUOTE Exactly... VRI should not replace live interpreting. In hospitals and clinics it is more of a "better than nothing" option. Usually it is used for triage and until a live interpreter can show up. ADA law is clear that accommodations can not be forced upon a person. However, the doctors and nurses have rights too. They can insist on having an interpreter even if the deaf client would prefer to use a friend or family member. Interesting that more and more spoken language interpreting is utilizing VRI since most of the information we convey is through non-verbal communication. __________________ Chip Royce IWRelay VP: iwrelay.tv iChat/AIM: Add "IWRelay" to your buddy list More info: www.iwrelay.com

03-30-2010, 01:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	There is no forcing of accomodation if VRI is the only one available especially if time is of essence or that there are no reliable live interpreters nearby. The ADA is about reasonable accomodation. A good read here. News for ASL Interpreters VRI ? The Best Option? __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode