Deaf Groups, Others Back IDT Bid To Expand TRS Fund Base; VON Opposed, ILECs Wary
IDT Telecom received somewhat more support than opposition to its bid for an FCC rulemaking aimed at expanding the Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund’s revenue base to include the intrastate revenue of industry contributors (see 1512210029). IDT’s petition got support from a coalition of consumer groups that advocate for the rights of the deaf and hard of hearing, and from some industry parties, including two video relay service (VRS) providers. But a VoIP industry group opposed the petition and an incumbent telco group said the FCC shouldn't make changes to the TRS Fund’s contribution at this time. The initial comments of parties were posted in docket 03-123 Thursday and Friday. The FCC currently assesses industry interstate and international telecom end-user revenue to pay for the TRS Fund.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The consumer advocates for the deaf and hard of hearing backed IDT’s request for a rulemaking, which they said would generate a useful evaluation of the benefits to consumers and carriers that contribute to the fund from expanding the overall revenue base. “This will provide greater stability in the cost of contributing to the TRS support mechanisms” and also reduce the contribution amounts of many carriers, said comments from Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inc. (TDI) and other groups: the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, Deaf Seniors of America, Hearing Loss Association of America and the National Association of the Deaf.
“The Consumer Groups support the Petition because including intrastate revenue in the federal TRS contribution base is consistent with the [Americans With Disabilities Act]’s requirement to provide a functionally equivalent service to consumers who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and deaf with mobility issues,” TDI and the others said. They said the change would lead to “increased federal supervision of intrastate TRS,” which could provide “greater consistency of service as well as better oversight of costs and compliance” with program rules. They agreed with IDT that the “applicable statutory provisions require the Commission to provide an ample funding source that recovers intrastate costs from intrastate revenue and not merely interstate and international revenue.”
VRS provider Sorenson Communications and CaptionCall supported the rulemaking to expand the TRS Fund contribution base. Including intrastate revenue would be “well within” the FCC’s authority and also would be “more equitable” by more closely aligning industry contributions to compensated services, they said, with a caveat: “While IDT is correct that the Commission can and should expand the contribution base, it overstates its case by contending that the Commission cannot continue to reimburse for intrastate IP-based TRS ('iTRS') from the Fund without an expanded base. The Commission’s current cost-recovery system for iTRS is a valid exercise of the Commission’s broad authority under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'). If the Commission does not wish to expand the contribution base at this time, it has ample authority to keep the status quo in place.”
Hancock Jahn, a smaller VRS provider, “fully supports IDT’s proposal in its entirety, believes it is well within statutes and purview of the FCC to implement, and encourages the Commission to swiftly issue” an NPRM on the matter. The FCC should adopt IDT’s requests to include intrastate revenues in the TRS Fund contribution base and to remove a “rule provision that requires video relay service costs to be recovered only from interstate and international revenue,” said Hancock Jahn.
The Voice on the Net Coalition asked the FCC to dismiss the IDT petition, which “failed to demonstrate a legally adequate basis for expanding the contribution base for the interstate TRS Fund to include intrastate revenue.” VON said that contrary to IDT’s assertions “the Commission lacks authority to collect such revenue” from telecom and VoIP providers. Congress restricted the FCC’s authority over intrastate telecom services, the regulation of which was “generally reserved” for the states, with some exceptions, the VoIP group said. “IDT's overly expansive reading of the statute ignores the surrounding context and overall legislative scheme” of the Communications Act, the group said.
USTelecom opposed making TRS Fund contribution changes without thoroughly reviewing the legal and policy implications, including industry impact. The ILEC group said it isn’t taking a formal position on the IDT petition but believes it isn’t the right time to consider substantive TRS Fund contribution changes, given the ongoing evolution in the broader USF program. “The timing of annual changes to the TRS contribution factor continues to be problematic for the industry, and USTelecom urges the Commission to accelerate its timeline for adopting the annual TRS contribution factor rather than considering changes that would only serve to delay the process,” it said.