The National Exchange Carrier Assn. will give the FCC a range of reimbursement rate proposals for telecom relay services, rather than recommend one number as in the past. Reimbursement rates are used to determine how much TRS providers are paid from the TRS Fund for providing services such as interpreters. The process often is controversial, providers and TRS users complaining that the rates aren’t high enough to cover the costly process. “NECA basically punted,” said a source who follows TRS funding issues. The FCC has opened a proceeding to study TRS rate methodology, so it makes sense to let the agency pick from a range, depending on different ways of defining costs and demand, NECA TRS Dir. John Ricker told the TRS Advisory Council Thurs. Ricker said for Video Relay Service alone at least 5 per-minute rates could be used, depending on which cost and demand figures are used. For example, if the agency accepted provider cost and demand figures, interpreters would be compensated at $6.77 a minute, he said, but if the FCC used provider costs but NECA demand measurements, the rate would drop to $5.85. Using another measure involving historic data and inflation adjustment the rate could be as low as $4.68, he said. The current rate is $6.64, he said. Ricker said the rate could go down this year if the FCC decided the current level is too high based on the new estimates. It would be very “wrong” to reach that conclusion, said Michael Maddix, regulatory affairs mgr. for VRS provider Sorenson Communications. Maddix said his company’s costs for providing service in 2006 exceeded $7 a minute. “At a time when more than 80% of deaf people in America do not yet have access to Video Relay Services, a reduction in the rate would cut back a program that is vital,” said Maddix.

The FCC released the text of a Dec. 20 ruling that IP- captioned phone service (CTS) is eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. In Dec. the FCC approved the order 5-0 with several commissioners commenting on the action’s importance to those with impaired hearing. “The record reflects that IP captioned telephone service simply describes a new way that consumers with hearing disabilities can access the telephone system through TRS that will accommodate persons who wish to speak to the other party and simultaneously both listen to what the other party is saying and read captions of what is being said,” the order says.

The FCC ruled that IP-captioned telephone service (CTS) should be eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund. “IP CTS will benefit consumers by giving them the flexibility of using a computer, PDA, or wireless device to make such a call, without having to purchase special telephone equipment,” the Commission said: “In addition, captions provided on a computer screen can accommodate a much wider group of individuals, including persons with low vision, because they can take advantage of the large text, variable fonts, and variable colors that are available.” IP CTS “helps the hard of hearing, and all Americans, because it supports the use of new technologies to facilitate real-time telephone conversations where a hard of hearing person is a calling party,” Comr. McDowell said. Comr. Copps called the order significant for people who are deaf and hard of hearing and often are unemployed. “Affected consumers can now take advantage of the flexibility and portability that IP captioned telephone service offers by freeing them from having to use specialized equipment,” Copps said.

The FCC should cover the cost of training sign language interpreters when it sets compensation rates for video relay service (VRS) providers, Sorenson Communications said in comments filed Mon. at the FCC. Interpreter training hasn’t kept up with demand, and a shortage looms, said Sorenson, a provider of VRS services and equipment. The reply comments responded an FCC proposal to change how telecom relay service (TRS) providers are compensated. AT&T told the FCC today’s regime “does not afford many providers a reasonable opportunity to fully recover their reasonable costs and is burdensome for both providers and NECA [the TRS administrator].” AT&T said the FCC should make sure a new regime “encourages provider efficiency, affords providers a reasonable opportunity to fully recover their costs in providing traditional and new TRS services and minimizes the burdens on providers, NECA and the Commission.” The company said it supports, for traditional TRS services, a proposed Multistate Average Rate Structure (MARS) plan that “relies on market-based intrastate rates derived from competitive bidding.” AT&T said for VRS, speech-to-speech and IP relay it generally backs Verizon’s proposed compensation methodology but “strongly opposes” a price cap approach proposed by Sorenson. It said it could support the MARS plan for IP relay services, which uses the same communications assistants and equipment to provide IP relay and traditional TRS.

The FCC should set rates for video relay service (VRS) and IP relay using a price cap approach like that used for incumbent LECs, 7 equipment and service providers told the FCC. The FCC had sought comment on how providers of telecom relay services (TRS) are compensated. As in the price cap regime, “the rates for VRS and IP Relay would be capped for a minimum of three years, during which time the rates would be adjusted upward annually for inflation… and downward to account for efficiency gains,” the providers suggested. The filing said price caps would create “incentives for all VRS and IP Relay providers to lower costs,” simplifying rate making. The cap should be set for a minimum of 3 years so providers have “predictability about revenue to allocate money to programs that will reduce costs in the future such as hiring and training more interpreters,” providers said. The filing was signed by Sprint Nextel, Sorenson Communications, Snap Telecom, Communication Access Center for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, Communication Service for the Deaf, GoAmerica and Hands on Video Relay Service. Verizon said the FCC should modify the ratemaking for VRS, IP Relay and Speech-to-speech relay by setting “a base rate and then [making] upward adjustments for inflation and any exogenous costs.” Six consumer groups said TRS providers should be compensated for “basic operational,” costs, “properly allocated executive compensation and “reasonable costs associated with marketing and outreach.” All these areas are essential to ensure service availability, said the filing by Telecom for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, Assn. of Late- Deafened Adults, National Assn. of the Deaf, Deaf & Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, Cal. Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, and Hearing Loss Assn. of America. TRS providers need enough money to “build the facilities and hire the staff necessary to meet the Commission’s speed of answer requirements,” they said. Providers should be compensated for the cost of certified deaf interpreters, research and development and lobbying, the consumer groups said. The Fla. PSC asked the FCC to refrain from requiring states to pick up part of VRS and IP Relay costs until outstanding issues are settled, including resolution of costly IP Relay fraud. Both services are compensated by Interstate TRS Fund but the FCC has indicated that’s temporary, with intrastate costs perhaps moving to the states, the PSC said. “If a decision is made to require states to assume intrastate VRS and IP Relay costs, the FCC must allow time for states to make legislative changes,” the Fla. regulators said. The comments were filed Oct. 30.

The FCC is seeking unfairly to make Verizon reimburse “several million dollars” in TRS payments because the company didn’t meet IP Relay “speed-of-answer” rules for several days between May 2005 and Jan. 2006, the company said. Verizon has an “excellent” record of meeting an FCC requirement that TRS providers answer 85% of IP relay calls within 10 sec., the company said in a July 31 filing. The few delays arose from factors beyond Verizon’s control, such as fraudulent calls and natural disasters, it said. Bogus calls “cause unpredictable spikes in call volumes… and therefore make it difficult to staff effectively,” Verizon said: “Because these fraudulent calls often last longer than legitimate calls, they tie up staff resources and require additional time-consuming steps for communications assistants and their supervisors.” And tornados, power outages and fiber cuts affect service speed without warning, Verizon said. The FCC never has sought retroactive repayment of TRS funding, Verizon said. It asked the FCC to issue a declaratory ruling that the Commission “lacks authority to impose such a retrospective penalty” or alternatively give Verizon a waiver for the days it ran over the 10 sec. because Verizon’s record overall was so good. The TRS rules “nowhere purport to impose an automatic penalty in the form of forfeiting the compensation that is owed where the observed speed of answer for an individual day varies from the benchmark,” Verizon said. Until the June 15 letter from the FCC Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, “the Commission never has sought to compel retroactive repayment,” Verizon said. The letter “is a glaring, unexplained departure from the Commission’s pre-existing policy that ‘absolute compliance with the [TRS] rules may not always be necessary.'” The company said it answered 89.7% of all IP Relay calls within 10 sec. between May 2005 and June 2006, and since Jan. 10 has met the benchmark 100% of the time. The number of days Verizon ran over the limit and the exact sum at stake weren’t revealed in the heavily-redacted filing.

The FCC asked for comment on whether to change the way providers of telecom relay services (TRS) are compensated. In a further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) adopted at the agency’s agenda meeting Thurs., the FCC asked for views on: (1) Alternative cost recovery mechanisms, including one proposed by Hamilton Relay called the multistate average rate structure (MARS) plan. (2) Whether traditional TRS, Speech- to-Speech Service and IP Relay should be compensated at the same rate. (3) The appropriate cost recovery method for Video Relay Service. (4) What costs are considered “reasonable” under the current methodology, including whether marketing and outreach expenses, overhead costs and executive compensation can be compensated from the TRS Fund. (5) Ways to improve the management and administration of the fund, including ideas for assessing the performance and efficiency of the fund. FCC Chmn. Martin said the FNPRM begins a “far- reaching inquiry” into the TRS Fund, similar to a study of the Universal Service Fund that began last summer. The questions asked in the proceeding are part of an attempt “to protect and maintain [the TRS Fund’s] integrity,” Martin said. FCC Comr. McDowell said the goal “cannot simply be eliminating economic uncertainty for providers.” The FCC must “balance” that need “with our obligation to see that rates are set and funds dispersed in a responsible manner.” Pat Nola, CEO of Sorenson Communications, a provider of relay equipment, said the action is “an important step” toward finding “a long-term rate methodology for VRS and other TRS service.” The goal will be coming up “with a system that provides the right incentives for providers to expand VRS service to reach more deaf people,” she said.

The FCC said late Thurs. it will vote at its July 13 meeting on an enforcement action against data broker 1st Source Information Specialist, d/b/a LocateCell.com. Putting an enforcement item on a meeting agenda is an unusual step at the FCC. It shows how much the agency has changed the way it does business since Chmn. Martin assumed the helm in March 2005, sources said Fri. The FCC under first Enforcement Bureau chief David Solomon refused to put enforcement actions on the agenda, sources said. Solomon headed the bureau from its opening in 1999 until May 2005.

Misuse of IP Relay, a service to help deaf people communicate, is becoming a serious problem, consumer and industry groups told the FCC this week. But there didn’t appear to be full agreement on how to fix the problem.

The FCC raised the reimbursement rates for telecom relay services (TRS) above those recommended by the National Exchange Carrier Assn. (NECA), after deciding to include some costs that NECA had excluded. The FCC raised the overall TRS fund size to $419.7 million for the year beginning July 1, 2006, compared with the $387.8 million recommended by NECA. The higher FCC number reflects, in large part, the agency’s decision to restore advertising and marketing expenses, which NECA recommended dropping. Advocates for hearing-impaired people had argued that advertising and marketing were important to make potential users aware of the relay services. The FCC said there has been confusion about the nature of these expenses, which sometimes are labeled “outreach,” so while the expenses have been restored for reimbursement, this action shouldn’t be interpreted as stopping the FCC in the future from deciding some of these costs aren’t eligible for compensation. For video relay service (VRS), the largest type of relay services, the FCC froze the current compensation rate until the Commission adopts a new rate based on new methodology and clarification of some other cost recovery issues. NECA had recommended reducing the rate. Pat Nola, CEO of Sorenson Communications, which provides VRS products, said the company had argued costs justified raising the reimbursement rate. However, the decision to freeze this year’s rate “is a positive preliminary step” while the FCC begins creating a new rate methodology. TRS reimbursement pays for the cost of providing services.