Advocates for the hearing impaired attacked a National Exchange C...

Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Relay Service. NECA, the TRS fund administrator, said it based the proposed reductions on “cost and demand projections received from providers of relay services.” Revised data collection forms were sent to providers in the fall at the FCC’s instruction, NECA said. Due to changes in relay service technology, data now are collected from providers based on types of TRS services, not costs at each TRS center. The new forms also allow providers to report capital investment costs for the first time. In a letter to the FCC, advocacy groups said the FCC should reject the rates because NECA didn’t “factor in the access and functional equivalence requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” The letter was signed by the National Assn. of the Deaf, Deaf & Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network and the Cal. Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf & Hard of Hearing. To comply with ADA, rates should reflect the need for interoperability of devices used by the deaf, “speed of answer requirements,” recruiting and training interpreters, providing equivalent 911 access, and other factors, the groups said. VRS provider Sorenson Communications also urged the FCC to reject reimbursement rate cuts, saying the VRS rate would be “inadequate to make VRS service available for the entire deaf community.” Sorenson said that “rather than increasing the rate to reflect the forecasted increase in costs coinciding with new federal requirements, NECA has recommended a considerable rate reduction aimed at eliminating costs such as outreach, which have been accepted in previous years.”