FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,569
viii, 4843-5761 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
parameters of the new rule to apply this restriction to those calls where a VRS provider, its affiliates, or
subcontractors, are involved in the scheduling, hosting, generating, and/or promoting of the remote
training.'36
45. Discussion. The function of a VRS provider is to provide communication for people with
hearing and/or speech disabilities that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone communications.'37
It is not common practice for a voice telephone user to receive promotions from his or her telephone
company to participate in seminars and other events that are designed to encourage greater telephone
use. Similarly, VRS providers should not create or promote remote training sessions that are designed to
encourage VRS users to place calls that they would not otherwise make. When a VRS provider engages
in activities that are designed to attract VRS users to remote training sessions, it is highly likely that the
provider is doing so for the sole purpose of generating minutes. For example, when a VRS provider
arranges for a remote training session to educate people about insurance options or how to file their taxes
and then instructs or encourages multiple participants to access such training through the provider's
VRS, it raises questions about whether such calls would have been made at the caller's own initiative.
Similarly, when a provider uses a hearing person to provide on-line training to several of its deaf
employees, all of whom work in the same location - and then instructs all of these employees to
participate in these sessions using VRS - rather than conduct this session in person using on-site sign
language interpreters, it is highly likely that the provider is engaging in these activities to pump minutes
to its service. In the VRS Call Practices NPRM, we noted that the as many as 232,000 VRS minutes
stemmed from these and similar types of remote training sessions in the second half of 2009, resulting in
at least $1.4 million billed to the Fund."3'
46. Accordingly, we adopt a rule providing that where a VRS provider is involved, in any way,
with remote training, VRS calls to such training sessions are not reimbursable from the Fund.39 Non-
compensable arrangements shall include any program or activity in which a provider or its affiliates of
any kind, including, but not limited to, its subcontractors, partners, employees and sponsoring
organizations or entities, have any role in arranging, scheduling, sponsoring, hosting, conducting or
promoting such programs or activities to VRS users. We believe the adoption of this rule will serve as a
deterrent against fraud, and will further deter providers from using remote training as a substitute for
video remote interpreting (VRI) services, which are also not compensable from the Fund.'4o
'36 CSDVRS Comments at 15: SnapVRS Comments at 18.
137 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
'38 We explained in the VRS Call Practices NPRM that these totals represented only those calls that the Fund
administrator had been able to identify for that period and that the actual amount may have been higher. VRS Call
Practices NPRM, 25 FCC Red at 6026, '33.
'39 See Appendix E for final rule. 47 C.F.R. 64.604(c)(5)iii)(N)(4).
'14 VRI is used when an interpreter cannot be physically present to interpret for two or more persons who are
together at the same location. This service uses a video connection to provide access to an interpreter who is at a
remote location. As with "in-person"' interpreters, VRI services are generally contracted, arranged in advance, and
paid for on a fee-for-service basis. See Reminder that Video Relay Service (VRS) Provides Access to the Telephone
System Only and Cannot Be Used As A Substitute For "In-Person" Interpreting Services or Video Remote
Interpreting (VRI), Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 14528, 14529 (2005) ("VRS cannot be used as a substitute for using
an in-person interpreter or VRI in situations that would not, absent one of the parties' hearing disability, entail the
use of the telephone"). See also Federal Communications Commission Clarifies that Certain Telecommunications
Relay Services (TRS) Marketing and Call Handling Practices are Improper and Reminds that Video Relay Service
(VRS) May Not be Used as a Video Remote Interpreting Service, Public Notice, 20 FCC Red 1471 (2005) (2005 TRS
(continued....)5569
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 11-54
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/741/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.