Z5 Hearing
Yes, I can sign directly with Deaf people, but this could be abused. There are 2 ways:
- VRS is not blocked, so hearing could fake VCO.
- P2P calls hearing-to-hearing without interpreter
VRS is most definitely not compensated, and should be blocked from a hearing videophone. As a hearing customer, your tollfree 888 number isn't in the iTRS database, so it cannot be compensated for VRS calls. The only tollfree 888 numbers allowed in the iTRS database are CNAME aliases to local phone numbers. The only local phone numbers allowed in the iTRS database are for deaf/HoH customers, and "frontdoor phone numbers" for dial-around access.
This also means that only ZVRS customers can call you, as only the ZVRS dialplan is aware of that tollfree 888 number routing to you. Any other VRS provider's customers will not be able to call your video phone, as there should be no iTRS database entry for your tollfree 888 number.
Your account should also be tagged as hearing. Both of these things ensure that billing records are not being passed along to RLSA for TRS fund compensation.
Z5 for Hearing doesn't require an SSN. But VRS does? The Z is the only provider that gives hearing a free number. Should the others start doing the same, or should The Z itself stop?
VRS requires an SSN thanks to the FCC's TRS-URD requirements to collect that information. While the TRS-URD doesn't exist _yet_, it will _soon_, and my understanding is that the VRS providers are required to collect this information in order to provide TRS fund compensated VRS service.
Whether other VRS providers should start doing the same, or should the Z itself stop, begs the addition question: should we have nice things? That ZVRS is willing to provide this service is based on their evaluation of the rules and regulations and risks inherent in providing this service to the hearing community, and a willingness to try and provide an innovative service. The reasoning behind other VRS provider's unwillingness to provide this service is based on a different interpretation of those same rules, regulations, and risks.
Arguably, the ability for hearing family members to place direct video calls is something the FCC is keenly interested in finding a way to provide. The real underlying issue is TRS fund compensation.
