Carriers, Relay Providers Urge Wider Umbrella for TRS Fund
The FCC should expand Interstate Telecom Relay Service fund support to include TRS calls involving multiple communications assistants, interpreters and technologies, said AT&T, Sprint Nextel, Sorenson Communications, GoAmerica and five other TRS providers. In a Wednesday petition for declaratory ruling, the companies said federal funding for that kind of call is needed to meet Congress’ functional equivalency goals. But the petition may have to overcome concerns on Capitol Hill that the TRS fund is already too large.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
FCC rules require TRS providers to “be capable of handling any type of call normally provided by telecom carriers,” the petitioners said. But while the TRS fund today reimburses calls between deaf consumers using the same kind of TRS technology, it doesn’t support calls taking place between consumers using different TRS technologies, they said. The fund administrator, the National Exchange Carrier Association, reimburses calls between captioned telephone users and video relay service; and text telephone and captioned telephone, because it says users of those services have no calling alternative, the petitioners said. But it doesn’t fund calls between video relay and text telephone, because it says they could be replaced with text-to-text or video-to-video calls.
The NECA rationale “has a number of flaws,” the petitioners said. Individuals choose either text or video relay technologies “because this is the mode of telephonic communication that best meets their needs, not because it is cheaper to use one method over another, or because they have not taken the time or effort to ‘update’ their relay technology,” they said. For example, deaf children using video relay may not be able to use text because they're too young to type, they said. Similarly, a text-using deaf person that doesn’t know sign language or lacks broadband may not be able to use video, they said.
“NECA does not make TRS policy, but rather acts at the direction of the FCC,” a spokesman for the association said Thursday. NECA doesn’t plan to take a position on the petition, he said. “Should the commission determine that these calls ought to be compensated from the TRS fund, the TRS fund administrator will ensure the providers are paid.”
But concerns about TRS fund size and management could make some hesitant to support a petition to expand subsidy support. A December FCC inspector general report (CD Dec 2 p2) said the fund has ballooned 50-80 percent annually since 1999, reaching $637 million in June 2008. The OIG predicted costs will rise to $805 million by June this year. And the fund has been plagued by improper payments and fraud, it said. Also in December, a House Commerce Committee report (CD Dec 10 p1) said TRS providers have overcharged consumers as much as $100 million a year.
“Management issues should not be an excuse for denying functionally equivalent access to deaf and hard of hearing individuals,” said Kelby Brick, vice president for GoAmerica. Adding multi-technology calls shouldn’t significantly increase the size of the fund because it affects a relatively small number of deaf consumers, said Karen Strauss, a consultant to CSDVRS and former FCC disabilities access expert. Helping the petition’s chances, she said, deaf consumers have been demanding a multi-technology rule for years. Still, Strauss doesn’t expect the FCC to act until a full commission is in place and the DTV transition is in the rear-view mirror, she said.