VRS Rate Draft Circulating at FCC; Sorenson, Rivals Spar Over 'Noncompete' Provisions
An FCC draft order would set new video relay service compensation rates, a commission official and industry representative told us Wednesday. The agency's four-year schedule of VRS rate reductions expires June 30, and providers have offered conflicting proposals.
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.
ZVRS and smaller providers have asked that most tiered VRS rates be raised -- except for the highest-volume tier, which would be further lowered. Industry leader Sorenson opposes that, backing a "market based" mechanism (see 1704250057). The FCC also is due to act on other telecom relay service (TRS) rates for the funding year beginning July 1. The commission's media relations office didn't comment.
VRS providers also disagreed on the need for restrictions on the use of "noncompete" agreements, as parties replied on other issues in docket 10-51 this week. Sorenson said there was no basis in the record for restricting "reasonable" agreements, including that employees remain loyal to a company during their tenure. Sorenson disputed FCC authority to impose limits on such provisions, which the company said were governed by state law.
ZVRS said "with the exception of the dominant VRS provider, there is a consensus among commenters that the commission should prohibit non-compete provisions in VRS [interpreter] employment contracts." ZVRS said there's also "broad support" for prohibiting most "non-service related inducements." ASL Services (GlobalVRS) said noncompete provisions "have no place in the program, harm interpreters, unfairly preclude access to skilled interpreters" and further Sorenson's "dominance." ASL said because of that "overwhelming dominance," the FCC should delay consideration of new VRS performance measures until full interoperability is achieved.
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and other deaf consumer groups said "performance goals and metrics are integral to achieving functional equivalency" for VRS users. Disputing Sorenson comments, the consumer groups said the FCC can't rely on market forces to improve service performance. The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf said "performance goals should be based on Consumer Groups' definition of functional equivalency." The FCC should also clarify call-handling duties of interpreters, many of whom are concerned about a requirement they interpret "phony" or "scam" calls they believe violate the law, RID said.