The Sorenson Challenge – Follow Up

June 8, 2007 Uncategorized

Whoa — is that interesting?

One commenter pinpointed me to the specific website. The link is: NECA.org and I did little bit more digging (what else is new, eh?) and whoa… fascinating website. It is NECA, also known as National Exchange Carrier Association.

Let me explain little bit about NECA, and what are their responsibilities. In 1983, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) formed NECA to perform telephone industry tariff filings and revenue distributions following the breakup of AT&T.

So basically, it is an association who make the decision about rates, and they collect data how each carrier (telephone, VRS, TRS, and etc.) performed per month.

There are several reports – and I want to present the first one that you will be most interested, the history of TRS rate cuts.

Rate History

Second report which I am presenting is the growth of minutes used for Video Relay Services, and you can see the huge surge.

Growth of VRS minutes used

Now, next report that you WILL want to know how much VRS companies earned from these minutes. Remember, this amount consists of several VRS companies, but let’s assume by being safe, that Sorenson claimed that they own approximately 70 percent of share (for VRS, TRS and IP services) … and I want to be little bit conservative by underestimating their share… to maybe 50 percent? Let’s see how much Sorenson received their money from FCC rates…

This is March 2007’s data:

March data

Last report, you will see the chart depicting the growth of VRS and how VRS may surpass the IP relay services in next several months! Poor TRS is in decline… which means we are not using our TTYs anymore, and obviously, the services are becoming worse. I just spoke one business company and they told me how much they loved VRS than TRS, and explained how frustrating for them to leave text relay message with TRS service. That didn’t surprise me.

Trend

So, you be the judge of this — analyze data and let us make some kind of determinations… yes VRS are in rise, and the rates are going fall, and who reaped the most money?

Then, Sorenson – its your turn to tell us why the threat of reducing rate is gonna to hurt you?

Twiddling my thumbs…

Did you like this? Share it!

41 comments on “The Sorenson Challenge – Follow Up”

Wow,

Fascinating report!

Now I wonder about Sorenson beside other VRS companies…

Thank you for sharing us on update report!

PMRjr

Amy,

There you go, girl! You are our investigator! See, you dig them up for us.

Now, we will see what the FCC has to say about the telephone bill, whether the FCC will have to force to increase the $$$$…..

What’s the next for the VRS companies…..testify for the FCC and the Capital Hill.

We will see what happens the next…..

White Ghost

1) Very interesting, lots to look over.
2) Damn, when are you going to come out to CA and run for office, woman? I’ll vote for you!

Ianis, for 2) I second that!!!!

Janis,

You can’t have Amy. We need Amy in Georgia!

Peachlady

Yes. Now let’s say for math sake, Sorenson holds 80%(actually 82%).

5 million total minutes on VRS multipled by 80% totalling 4 million.

They said they could handle around $4.60 per minute when they wanted it to drop rates in order to eliminate a few VRS providers. Now, let’s look at 6.64 (current cost) – 4.60 (sorenson’s proposed rate) = $2.04 per minute profit for Sorenson.

2.04 times 4 million minutes = 8 million dollars per MONTH.

$8M x 12 months = $96 million PROFIT.

Still want more ??

Something wrong with Sorenson!!!

This fresh on the vine that it’s rumored that Sorenson VRS will probably demand VP’s back from deafs who dont sign and send back the FCC card.

Richard

Amy is one of the reason I love Deafread.com.

Interesting reimbursement rates.

Thanks to Amy and her commenter for showing us these infos.

Sorry it’s me again, after posting my recent comment, I went back up to your headline and see this logo by your webpage title….logo looks proper on you.

Hi, Amy,

Okay, I was wondering about the other side of this. Maybe we are on an one-side story, and need to hear something else, if any. Do you understand what I am saying? I mean, perhaps we need to look at a bigger picture of the whole situation?? Thank you.

deafk

NAD support VRS!

The earlier comment that Sorenson is “profiting” more than $90 mill per year I dont think is accurate because it doesnt take into account the costs of running Sorenson nor the very high cost of R&D. Im not defending Sorenson (theyre making it very difficut for us to meet the community needs of the Deaf); however, I dont feel that the rate of roughly $5.50 per hour is out of line. What I’d like to see the FCC do is: 1. require that all VRS providers hire certified interpreters only, 2. require that relay calls must be made remotely (no same-room or same-building calls) and 3. provide a 20% voucher bonus to the smaller providers to allow them to compete (Sorenson is loaded with cash from their other holdings and can absorb a rate reduction where the smaller ones suffer a cash drought).

Interpreting, running workshops to train interpreters, facility, giving out D-Link video cameras, installers, employees cost money.

Business are out there to make a profit and that is one of the reasons why we are getting excellent services. If it is not true then we would not get VRS to begin with. Competition is healthy and the profits will give the company extra cash to do research and development to make our relay service experience wonderful.

It is easy to point fingers and a lot of the VRS providers gives back so much to the community.

NECA is a very complex issue and there are no easy way to understand how the system works because it involves policy and economics.

We cannot put restrictions on a business and it defeats the purpose of capitalism.

Wow, Amy…you did good job!

Basically, we need to have FCC to help to improve boardband for better faster speed to get our video clearly. Keep in mind, most deaf people lives in rural or small town areas where there are limited of boardband for deaf to have VP…hopefully FCC or VRS do help to pay to improve better boardband. Not just get richer itself.

Keep it up,

Deaf Bevo

Amy,

And this explains what? I’m not sure if I understand what you are coming at. Sorenson is a private company and there’s no way of really assessing their profits since their finances aren’t public.

Like Dennis said, it’s a buisness–it wants to make money. Capitalism at its finest.

What were you trying to point out with the reimbursement costs? We have no information regarding the costs Sorenson pays per minute. I dunno.

Der Sankt

Hi Amy.

Why is it important how much money Sorenson makes? I ask this respectfully, my friend.

To me, the important issue seems to be making sure VRS services continue to be well supported/funded so there are plenty of VRS terps out there for us to use on Video Relay.

I also think that TTY and IP Relay services are still important and should be well funded and supported because there is a whole slew of late-deafened and hard of hearing people in the world who do not sign and do not use VRS. They rely on typed word instead. There should be action to support this area as well.

I have to agree with what Jared said in his comment on your other post:

“This is not about abuse of the Deaf- they are providing us a professional and public service that is of a great benefit to our lives. It is not cheap to ensure quality service.”

To me, the importance is to make the feds know we value all of these kinds of communication access. If we need to ask them to keep them well funded so they continue, then I’m certainly for that.

~ LaRonda

Hello Ben (Der Sankt) and LaRonda,

First of all, I have nothing against the captialism, and I did mention that my previous vlog that I admire Sorenson’s business strategies, and there were some things that I don’t totally agree with. Kudos for Sorenson for making this business a very profitable one, and improving the quality of VRS. My only beef was that they made an effort by creating a videomarketing tool to call VP users to ask us to support VRS to keep the FCC rate the same. They are willing to do that, and yet, they own 83 percent of market share. I only want some kind of transparency from all VRS companies, especially Sorenson, for the ‘cost breakdown’ in a general terms, for example, how many percent they use for operational costs, interpreting, training (for trainees – not installers, they cannot call them anymore, because FCC does not want to reimburse for product installation, just training how to use the product), outreach, and etc. I don’t need to know all of the intimate details about how they run business.

The profit margin is huge for Sorenson, and hopefully they continue to improve their consumer service support due to numerous complaints from the consumers, and let you know that the VP 100’s are starting to break down.

I do want FCC to keep their rates intact, or increase the rate with suggestions that NAD made to NECA to have some kind of transparency with their decision making process.

Last thing, I do not need to know how much money Sorenson makes, it is quite obvious that we can get this data on this blog. They make millions of dollars. Kudos!

I am challenging Sorenson to tell us how would this rate reduction affect THEM! I know that rate reduction will HURT other VRS companies much more than Sorenson.

All I want Sorenson to tell us if the rate reduction happens, what might happen? Will the VP200’s stop distributing? Will they start to ‘sell’ their VP200’s after promising the community that they will get theirs for free?

What happens to VP100s which is starting to break down? Will they get refurbished one which might will break down again?

Is there any other new products (videophones) out there that is better than VP200s? Who will do the technical support for new products?

Sorenson is the only market, as of now, that I know of, handles videophones which is compatible with TV.

Other ‘videoconferencing’ products, needs to come with computers (webcam).

Hey… thank you so much for your time to write these comments. I’m glad to see there is a healthy dialogue going on!

Amy Cohen Efron

Amy,

I know that Sorenson will have the huge profits, however, they will be facing the deductible from the income taxes.

I do hope it won’t happen to the Sorenson like the IBM did in the 1970’s.

The reason why FCC summons the Sprint, MCI, Verizon and other contractors to testify the FCC and the Capital Hill.

White Ghost

Amy

Your response was clarifying except for one part: “Last thing, I do not need to know how much money Sorenson makes, it is quite obvious that we can get this data on this blog. They make millions of dollars. Kudos!”

I can’t see how that report tells us that they’re making profits. Like I said earlier, their finances are not public information, so we have no way of knowing if the reimbursement rates are helping sorenson break even or gain profits.

It appears that Sorenson is including the product and the installation as part of the package for the reimbursement. If that is removed, are they going to lose money? How much are they going to lose?

I honestly cannot see how you guys came up with “profits” out of these reports…Show me.

Der Sankt

Der Sankt,

I cannot show you any hard evidence/data that Sorenson made profit from FCC rates. Common Sense prevails that by looking at the company’s growth, and the minutes used to reimburse, that is a lot of money.

Have you gone to the Deaf Expos or tradeshows, you can see how large the Sorenson exhibit was, along with other VRS companies, such as HOVRS using their cinematic theme with a tie-in, Mosdeux’s Permanent Grave, CSDVRS, Hamilton, and so forth.

Sorenson partnered with a private equity firm, called GTCR. GTCR agreed to invest with SorensonVRS on October 2005, and please read their mission:

GTCR’s investment approach has been based on a philosophy of identifying, recruiting, and partnering with exceptional managers to build industry leading companies through acquisition and organic growth.

GTCR has successfully partnered with over 125 management teams and manages approximately $8.0 billion in capital.

I wish I knew why this move was necessary. Maybe it helps Sorenson to meet the increasing and explosive demand of video relay services. That equity company has their shareholders and they are making profit from that too.

GTCR is a private company, also known as limited liability corporation.

The bottom line, one major VRS company, like Sorenson who really did a wonderful job expanding the video relay services for deaf and hard of hearing people. The SorensonVRS/GTCR are benefitting something on our expense.

I will make more vlogs to explain in detail about the VRS industry, and how this VRS industry makes us more ‘informed’ what was happening out there via our most wonderful medium, vlogging.

Without VRS, no vlogging for us.

Amy

Psst… Amy, I do still NOT understand why the NAD do still want us to write to FCC??? For what??? Iam confused!

Thank you…

Amy here again,

One person mentioned to me that Sorenson is NOT the only VRS company who partnered with venture capital/equity company, and I did little bit more digging…

CSDVRS is trying to keep up with the pace, and CSDVRS partnered with MC Venture Partners.

Check this link: MC Venture Partners

Also, CSDVRS is a private company too, the Limited Liability Corporation.

That is all…

In July 2002 for several months, CSD/Sprint was the leading VRS company.

Meanwhile, Sorenson Media came up with the patent, called codec, also called video compression technology. This codec has been licensed to several well known companies such as QuickTime, Macromedia Flash, etc. Sorenson’s codec /chip was in DLink’s videophones and modified it specifically for SorensonVRS.

This popular product surprised CSD/Sprint completely, and SorensonVRS reclaimed the market.

CSD, as a non-profit company, decided to ‘let go’ the video relay services, and thus the birth of CSDVRS began.

I guess we will be seeing the Video Relay competition going on…

CSDVRS — I sincerely hope you will create a new product as soon as possible before the majority of VP100’s will break down.

Amy Cohen Efron

Amy…THANK YOU for your reports. They are very helpful. So is the dialogue going on here. The more knowledge we have, the more empowered we are. I would LOVE to see you (AND others including myself) do the same thing you did with Sorenson and VRS on Cochlear Implant companies. Check out all the regulations they have been making with state legislations and possibly SSI/Medicare to reimburse the implants…thus making HUGE money off our bodies. At least VRS enhances our use of Sign Language while the CI companies ultimately destroys Sign Language and/or divides the community (and NOT giving a damn about it)…I do however have concerns about how much Deaf people ourselves financially profit from VRS. After all, we help High Speed internet providers financially and what have they contributed to our community and empowerment? Financially I mean. Just a few thoughts.

How can we financially profit from VRS — only if one or two companies decided to sell their shares/stocks to IPO — and I’ll purchase them! I wanna to be a shareholder to this video relay industry, but dunno if that is possible. Both Sorenson VRS and CSDVRS are Limited Liability Corporation… and it comes with different rules.

Sigh… why do they (venture capitalists) keep inventing something off our bodies, or off our language to make profitable? Why cannot WE as Deaf community think that way — can we invent something off of HEARING bodies, and off their ENGLISH language to make us rich?

Duh.. no sirree…

In America, or at least, the world, the intent of fixing ‘broken bodies’, and the ‘fascination’ of sign language for novelty sake. That’s where the money is.

I am being very sarcastic here… mind this tone.

Amy Cohen Efron

Just a thought…some talked about capitalism. Yep, I’ve got nothing against captialism but at taxpayers’ expenses? That’s probably why FCC is trying to cut the rates. Having worked for a non profit organization, I had to work hard to convince the government agencies (i.e., Community Development Block Grant) why we deserved to keep the amount of the grant money. If they saw that we’re making too much money, then they’d see it fit to cut the amount if we weren’t able to justify the need.

Hi again, Amy.

I spoke to a couple of Sorenson VRS managers and VP installers this last weekend. I asked them what would happen if the FCC reduced the rates. They said the following:

1) There would be less or no money to train quality interpreters. Therefore, the quality of the terps we get on VP would potentially not be good. There would also be less terps so we would have longer waits to get an interpreter on the phone.

2) When a VP has a glitch or breaks down and needs to be fixed or replaced, the wait will be even longer because there would not be enough funds to pay staff or hire more staff. There might not be money for more equipment or it would take longer to get it due to the cuts.

3) There would not be any funds for new technological advances such as the Sorenson VP 3. The feedback from consumers who want new or better features on a VP 3 would be held in limbo because no funds to advance technology.

They told me that there are other things that the funding cut would impact and referred me to go to the VRS websites. They said they list all the impacts there and give suggestions what we deaf consumers can do to help.

I asked if the funding cut meant that we would have our free VP’s taken away. They said no. But if they break down, it might be longer for us to get a replacement.

The interesting thing was that they had no idea this discussion was happening up at DeafRead. They were very interested in learning what the deaf consumers were discussing.

This makes me wonder…. when you challenged Sorenson to make things public and answer some of your questions, did you also send them this info in writing or direct them to you vlog? Maybe they are not aware of what you’ve asked.

just a thought.

~ LaRonda

Hi

Well here is VRS only place service. Are you try control everthing in one place that is monopoly.

I think we should have be fair for other companies because business is business.

I know this be nice to help deaf people who do not have a VP and get free from Sorenson’s machine and also upgrade to 200 from 100 Sorenson.

I think we should have many different kind technology of mechine by other companies for VP options and for free only standard up to 100 and 200 Sorenson system but more option with new techonologies then we should buy it or free.

So If FCC cut Sorenson for service Video Rely only but other have still money for 200 Sorenson for help deaf who do not have it. So keep that way.

That be okay we have many servicies Video Rely out there as Rely service by free toll option. FCC pay other serivces too unless approval. So that be even other as business is business. Sorenson you should don’t want be Monopoly! Think about it. Thanks for time.

Your Sincerely
Mitch

Well done, Amy! I have learned more about the VRS industry and how the FCC works through your webpage than any other.

Thanks, Amy, for alerting us and helping us be aware of what’s happening right now. From this lesson, if we have any qualms about any certain thing that concerns the deaf community, we should also investigate the same way you did and perhaps bring up more discussions.

Thanks, Amy!!!

Ben, capitalism at its finest? No. The VRS companies are making profits by getting $ from the FCC who in turn got the money from taxpayers.

IN turn, I think Amy reserves the right to find out things as is.

R-

What taypayer money? It is not tax money!!! It is USF (universal services fund) money that is being redistributed among various programs, of which TRS/IP/VRS are among designations. USF has been seeing a lot of surpluses lately whereby telecomm industry once had been asking for reduction in fee chargeable to telecomm customers, but they stopped the lobbying. Telecomm realized that USF has been benefitting the industry. Anyway, don’t you rather allowing VRS getting larger share of this pie, no matter those pig capitalists, as long as we the deafies are main benefacaries of this services. Not to mention more jobs for deafies, despite triple jobs for those tweerps. Where else can we gain from other than this one?

This is like digging dirt on Sorenson, when there isn’t any.

I think it is wrong to accuse any of the VRS providers of trying to run a business and make profit. It is a win/win situation. We get their videophones, Video Relay Services, and improved lifestyles and they continue to run their business and continue to provide us their next generation deaf technology as we continue to age and see the world evolve. It is as simple as that.

Why doesn’t Sorenson want FCC cuts? Probably because the cuts will hurt the minor VRS providers and probably diminish their funds, forcing them to all to shut down. What happens next? Sorenson becomes the last remaining VRS provider and a true monopoly, gaining 100% market share. Sorenson doesn’t want a monopoly. Sorenson wants to maintain the competition, so that they can proceed to present new products and outdo the competition; the natural flow of healthy competition.

It isn’t Sorenson’s fault that they have the coolest products and the “Microsoft of the Deaf World” feel. Think about it. Sprint probably has as much money or more and could come up with something to challenge the VP-200, but they won’t. This is something the other VRS providers need to work harder at.

What do the other VRS providers do? They leech off of the Sorenson videophones and use Sorenson videophones as a medium to channel their VRS funds through. Unsuspecting users blindly fall for this tactic and dismiss the morals and ethics that surround this dirty method.

As some of you know, back when HOVRS was installing the i2eye, they had created a firmware in their routers that had firewall rules hard coded to intentionally block all other VRS provider’s IP addresses. Yes, they got cited by the FCC for this later.

I didn’t realize this until my Sorenson installer came and installed my VP-100. She discovered that my old router blocked the IP address to Sorenson’s VRS network, while investigating on the firewall rules within the router. She then asked me if the router was given to me by HOVRS, since I took off the sticker. She gave me a new Sorenson router (it’s the gray router with the Sorenson label, if you’ve seen them). She showed me the firewall settings in it and the settings were clear and unbiased!

My Sorenson installer is amazingly technically savvy, honest, and friendly. She asked me whether I wanted to keep the i2eye and the VP-100 at the same time. I told her yes, so I could see whether Sorenson was also into the dirty tricks game, but she politely agreed and explained that one VP had to be off and the other on in order for them to work, unless I had two IP addresses. Later I called Sorenson tech support on VP to ask for authorization for my installer to come back and help me after I majorly messed up the connections during a move to a new house and then when she arrived, I told her that I’d just like the VP-100 connected alone this time, without the i2eye anymore. She told me that disconnecting the i2eye was something that I would have to do by myself. I said “Why?”. She said it was policy and ettiquette of business practices. I was very impressed and have been a loyal user ever since.

I don’t really think you understand that you’re (Sorenson oppressors) setting yourself up for embarassment in the long run, after this debate has been extinguished.

I still will not ask them for my VP-200. I will get it when it is my turn. My VP-100 is not falling apart or breaking down, which is a ludicrous claim. I still have many friends with a VP-100. They just had their VP-100’s replaced if they broke down. No technology is fail-safe and perfect. You’ve all seen your computers break down one time or another and had to PAY for it at the local Best Buy or technician. This VP service was free!!

I hope to set this perspective and example to many of my peers here.

Wow, I like this… people talking with great certitude about things they don’t know JACKSHIT!

I believe Sorenson is a company who oppress us. If we look at the big picture.. All cell phone users can call anybody regarless who the providers are. They also can purchase any model of those cell phones they desire to own. Now, as for the videophone world. We have no options. D-Link or Sorenson. D-Link is sold in retail stores and online. Sorenson does not, they control our equipment. My videophone was shattered when I moved to a new location. (Yes, I pack poorly) I threw it away, being that it’s shattered. Now, I can’t get a new videophone because I don’t have the old one with me. Therefore, no videophone for me. That’s not right. I should be able to purchase one and I would. To me this is a form of control and oppression.

Secondly, I have huge problem with this phone number issues between sorenson and d-link. Both devices cannnot connect to each other using phone number. An IP address is required to connect between a d-link and a sorenson videophone. How messed up is that? I don’t see other telephone users or other communication devices set up that complicated. This is silly. Sorenson is a fortune 500 company before starting the video relay services. I do not beleive the cuts in the rate will hurt them.

I think Sorenson is the company everyone loves to hate. But let’s give them credit….they improved the quality of our lives (and there are many of us).

Forget the fact that they control a majority of the VRS market. Forget the fact that they are pocketing a lot of money from people who are chosing to use their (VRS) services.

Let’s just remember that they are the main reason many organizations and individuals are benefiting from their presence – organizations are getting sponsorship monies and individuals are getting jobs in the VRS industry (and this includes other VRS companies who are in the business to compete the giant – they are providing jobs and more sponsorship monies in effort to penetrate the VRS market).

I believe Sorenson is also speaking on behalf of other VRS companies. Sorenson has a legal team and they appear to know what they are doing.

Let’s not make a fuss about Sorenson’s financial statement. Let’s not make a fuss about Sorenson’s using their own VP100/200 which they distributed for FREE to call back customers to educate them about the potential impact of funding cuts. If you dont like it, dont use their service and return the VP100/200 so that other people can enjoy the benefits of using their videophone.

You guys – dont you think your energy would be better spent on advocating for better education system for deaf/hard of hearing children?

If the rate does get cut and VRS service is indeed impacted, all we can say “thanks a lot” to those who made noises and barked at the wrong tree.

Ok. again, I have to ask.. if you like the new features added to the VP’s? call waiting, 200. Interpreter Training to provide better communications for us. Sponsorship for Galludet and RID? I tried replying on your last sorenson challenge with a whole list of things sorenson has done for the deaf community, however, either you havent read it or are afraid to post my replies because it shuts your therories down. FYI I was wondering. when you work.. do you do it for FREE?? no you get paid.. it takes money to improve on technology, engineers, computer programmers, Interps, training programs, installers/trainers, You seem to forget that not only does sorenson provide us with Interpreters but they have provided many jobs for deaf in different areas of the nation. Also, heres an idea. Why doesnt the FCC put it to a Vote.. after all this is a democratic country we live in, Why not have the deaf community vote on which service they would like to keep.. That way the FCC is not having to pay millions of dollars to various differnt companies. So I, in turn, would like to Challenge YOU. Ms. Efron, why not get your readers to Vote as to which Companies they would like to see stay on as our VRS provider. Top 3 Stays the rest cut off.. What do you think?

Amy,

Betwee this post and your last, it is clear that many in the deaf community need to visit the FCC site and read the VRS regulations before they post again. One thing they would find there are the regulations on what is reimbursed by the NECA fund.

Here’s a list of everything that SorensonVRS provides its customers for FREE:
Videophone
Call lists
Ring patterns(vp200)
Conferencing (vp200)
Zoom
Lens selection (vp100)
Firmware updates
Installation
Cables
Router
Support
911 service
Point to point calls
VRS calls
Upgrades from VP100 to VP200
Many others

Okay, now a list of all the things from the list above that the FCC reimburses out of the NECA fund
…
…
…

That’s right…NONE of the technology and features listed at the top can be re-imbursed by the FCC. Which means all of those things come out of the revenue that Sorenson dares to make. Sorenson makes the exact same amount per minute as every other VRS provider, but they choose to re-invest in the technology, and continue to provide that technology for no charge to the deaf community.

Everyone, especially Sorenson, knows that they are the leader because of the Videophone technology, not because of the interpreter service. Cuts to the fund equals cuts to new technology. Without the technoloty, Sorenson would lose any edge they have over competitors.

Perhaps that has something to do with their ‘spam’. Or, perhaps they are the only VRS company doing any research on VRS growth, and the possible options facing the FCC in handling this growth. Basically, the FCC can lower the rate or increase the general fund. In one case, they anger the deaf community, in the other case, they anger every phone customer in america.

Personally, after reading the selfish, misguided rants in many of the comments on your blog, I hope the FCC does lower the rate. Maybe when VRS becomes a pay service, the community would show a little humility, instead of taking things for granted.

Very interesting, Thank for the info.

After reading all of those comments in here from other deafs, I find those comments VERY interesting concept.

Amy, you had done a excellent job researching and provided us informations. However, one thing, do you actually have proof that this is really the accurate results and I wonder why Soreson still complains about the loss of cost they needed to reap to further prolong services for the deaf in the community.

Keep up the good work and please continue provide us information that we all were not aware of and give us a idea how it works, God bless you!

After reading Amy’s comments and all 39 other comments, are we forgetting something?

We use VRS to make telephone calls for FREE! The general public chips in. Did we have that when we started with TRS?

What fears me the most is, one day we will have to pay for the videophone equipment, just like we do for telephone.

I can understand where some of us wants to know and request Sorenson to explain in details of the actual cost vs expenses. But are we opening a can of worms when we do that? Have you ever ask General Motors or IBM or Dell their reasons for charging their products?

Where are we going with VRS? Are we trying to shut the system down with all of our questions? SNAP is coming on board (I am still waiting for my equipment).

I think FCC has a good reason to question about the VRS rates. And, with all of our concerns, I see it a healthy reason to get in touch with FCC. FCC has no figures as to the number of users of VRS but they do have the number of minutes being used. And, it is growing. But, there are no figures of the number of us calling our friends that does not require VRS. We got free videophone equipment. We can call any of our friends for any length of time, anywhere in the country, for FREE! Do we want to stop doing this?

Sorenson opened the door for many of us and I like to give my thanks to the company. In addition, I like to give my thanks to all the VRS vendors/companies we now have. I want to take this moment to say “thank you” for being in the business to allow us to be able to communicate in a more efficient way than we ever had.

Of course, the increase use of blogs/vlogs to enable us to exchange opinions. But, we need to look at the whole picture carefully. What are the impacts?

As for requesting Sorenson to tell us in more details, I say, get over it. Move on. You will not get answers. They have a right. Let’s focus on FCC’s reasons for reducing the VRS rates. Do you agree with FCC? However you feel about this, FCC needs to hear from you. Put our taxes at work.

Thank you.

Phil

Dear Amy:
I applaud you on your ability to dessiminate information to the Deaf community and generate a thoughtful and provoking discussion. There are SEVERAL points brought up in the posts following your initial post on FCC rates and supposition about Sorenson specifically that rate further examination.

First, let me start with the disclaimer. I am currently a video interpreter with Sorenson Communications on the west coast. I have worked for them for about 18 months, and prior to that I worked for CSD VRS for over two years. I have a great deal of insight on video relay services from both the perspectives of an interpreter and that of a tax payer. That being said, here are my thoughts…

1. Traditionally, the FCC has been in the business of regulating rates and reimbursements (via NECA as you said) for all Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) of which VRS is one type. Every individual in the United States who has a phone pays a surcharge on his or her phone bill that is allocated to the funding of all TRSs (this includes CapTel, IP Relay, VRS, TTY Relay, et al). This means that both hearing and Deaf people who have traditional land-line phones “pay” for this service. Since the inception of TRS services, the service has always been funded this way.

2. It is CRITICAL that all people (Deaf and hearing) understand that providing video relay services (and all other types of relay services for that matter) is a BUSINESS. It is not a public service or non-profit endeavor, and someone will ultimately profit from it. As you stated, Amy, it would be fantastic if it could be Deaf people who ultimately earned the profits, but innovation is not limited by hearing status. Deaf people have the opportunity to come up with something that will be patentable and lucrative just as hearing people do. Deaf people can seek out venture capitalists just as hearing people do.

3. Just for the sake of information, Sorenson provides, at NO CHARGE (and will continue to do so as far as its employees have been informed) videophones that are worth on the order of $300 apiece. This means that for every video phone Sorenson installs in a customer’s home, they pay out of their own pocket $300 to give it to the Deaf customer. As the older VP-100s start to give out, they are committed to replacing these older devices with the newer versions as quickly as they can. As someone pointed out, the FCC and NECA DOES NOT reimburse Sorenson or any other VRS/TRS company for ANYTHING other than minutes of calls made through its telecommunications services. This means that all the overhead that it costs to actually run the service and provide the videophones and relay services: e.g., interpreters, equipment, call centers, management, installers, research and development to improve VP technology, 24 hour technical support, etc. is not reimbursed. Only each minute of call time is reimbursed.

4. So why did Sorenson decide to sell controlling shares in its company to a venture capital organization? Well, in order to continue to innovate and to continue to provide these devices to Deaf customers, it needed investment capital ($$$) to do so. The FCC will not provide it. Continual improvement and continual expansion to control market share is what capitalist companies do, and how capitalism ultimately works.

There is nothing stopping Sorenson’s competitors from attempting to obtain venture capital support and developing competing technology or services. That is what makes America great – competition breeds excellence, and, ultimately, CHOICE on the part of the consumer.

5. So why does Sorenson care how much the FCC reimbursement rate is if they can operate on what they receive now or less?
The answer to that is simple – the FCC changes the rate every year for all TRS providers. As businesses, ALL TRS/VRS companies (Sorenson, HOVRS, CSDVRS et al) COLLECTIVELY asked the FCC to consider offering a 3-year rate that would be effective for a minimum of 3 years, rather than changing the rate every year. This would allow ALL providers of services to be able to make much more cohesive business plans and not have to worry that in one year, they could be shut down due to a drastic rate cut.

6. So if that is the case, then why is the amount of the rate important??
It is interesting to note that as a service becomes more widespread, or if use becomes higher, more and more companies jump on the bandwagon in order to get their piece of the pie. What then happens, is more competition, but also a dilution of the service quality. As the best interpreters get snapped up by VRS companies, community interpreting suffers, and there are fewer and fewer skilled interpreters to provide services out in the community AND in the VRS centers as the industry grows.

VRS providers are REQUIRED BY LAW to answer calls in a timely fashion (meaning no one waits for an interpreter more than 2 minutes) if the provider takes MORE THAN 2 minutes to answer your call, no matter how many minutes you talk, the VRS provider DOESN’T GET PAID. And yet they are still paying for the interpreter to provide the service and all the overhead to run VRS as a whole.

The biggest fear is that the rates will go so low, VRS companies will be unable to provide compensation to its interpreters at a level that will keep their employees working there. This means the VRS companies (like school districts before them) will have to hire less and less skilled people in order to fill seats and meet the average speed of answer requirements set by the FCC in order to receive reimbursement. This phenomenon is known as “commoditization.” Something becomes so commonplace that the good or service value is cheapened. It isn’t good for Deaf people as a whole to have unskilled people working in VRS settings or the community.

Eventually, (actually I believe this is already and has been a reality for some time) we will run out of interpreters. It takes so much time to train an interpreter and many years after that for an interpreter to develop skills sufficient and diverse enough to do VRS work. Much like when all the K-12 interpreters decided to freelance, now all the freelance interpreters are deciding to do VRS. As VRS centers grow and grow, they will be forced to take on less and less qualified or uncertified interpreters in order to meet their speed of answer requirements. How does this help the Deaf community?

7. As Phil so aptly pointed out above, Deaf people are one of the only groups of individuals I know of who have access to free long-distance (and international) calling through VRS. Who do you think eats that cost? Deaf and hearing people through that telephone bill surcharge, and the companies that provide the VRS/TRS service. NOTHING IS FREE.

8. As Phil and Amy both mentioned, just because a company is large and a MAJOR market share holder, does not mean that it has ANY obligation to make its financial holdings or costs versus revenues public – unless it is a publically traded company (e.g. You can buy stock in it.). So Sorenson, CSD, and HOVRS and all others that are private, for-profit companies, have no obligation to share with you their financial information.

9. Finally, and this is my own personal soapbox – without interpreters, VRS would not exist. The interpreting service is what VRS is about – NOT VIDEOPHONES. If Deaf consumers don’t USE VRS (and I don’t care which one you use – it could be ANY of them) then the FCC will believe that it is not of value to the Deaf Community and will discontinue reimbursing for it. If all a Deaf person wants is a videophone, they can go buy a D-Link. There needs to be a clear understanding and distinction between Deaf to Deaf communication (VP to VP) and VRS communication. Sorenson and other VRS providers do not exist to provide a means for Deaf people to communicate with other Deaf people – they provide a means for Deaf and hearing people to communicate. I think that point gets lost sometimes.

10. There is NO QUESTION that VRS and TRS are big business, and that the amount of money is huge. I would simply ask that people consider the benefits they are receiving from the service and how it makes their lives better before jumping to the conclusion that the division of market share should be “equal” or that Sorenson as a large company is simply trying to profit off of Deaf people rather than providing a service that makes life better. Don’t forget that the interpreter who work for all of you are committed to making your lives better, and we want to ensure that your communication is as fluid as possible.

I apologize in advance for this LONG post, but I feel like it is important everyone understand the realities of both the business side of VRS AND the customer service, Deaf community benefit side.

Thank you for the opportunity to post – your discussion has been very important. I thank you, Amy for being as cool and dynamic as you were when you lived out my way in the Portland/Vancouver area.

We miss you 🙂

Tammy (Fischer) Richards, BS, CI & CT; SC:L; NAD IV
Certified Sign Language Interpreter

Leave Comment

5 − one =