[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41863-41866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17575]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CG Docket No. 10-51; FCC 10-111]
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes a fresh look at its
video relay service (VRS) rules so that the Commission can ensure that
this vital program is effective, efficient, and sustainable in the
future. VRS allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to use
American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate with friends and family and
to conduct business in near real time. In this proceeding, the
Commission seeks to improve the program to ensure that it is available
to and used by the full spectrum of eligible users, encourages
innovation, and is provided efficiently so as to be less susceptible to
the waste, fraud, and abuse that plague the current program and
threaten its long-term viability. The Commission's goal is to solicit a
wide range of thoughts and proposals for making the program work better
for those who could benefit from it and those who pay into it.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 18, 2010. Reply comments
are due on or before August 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554
You may submit comments, identified by [CG Docket number 10-51 and/
or FCC Number 10-111, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. For
ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance is CG
Docket No. 10-51.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet
e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to
[email protected], and include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form .'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response. In addition, parties submitting an
electronic copy must send a copy of such filing to (1) Mark Stone,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, [email protected]; (2)
Nicholas Alexander, Wireline Competition Bureau,
[email protected]; (3) Diane Mason, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, [email protected]; and (4) Nicholas A. Degani,
Wireline Competition Bureau, [email protected].
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by
hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. In addition, parties
must send one copy of each pleading to: the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
[[Page 41864]]
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are
8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Mason, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-7126 (voice),
(202) 418-7828 (TTY), or e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Notice of
Inquiry, document FCC 10-111, adopted on June 8, 2010, and released on
June 28, 2010, in CG Docket No. 10-51. The full text of document FCC
10-111 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter
will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS and during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. They may
also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300, fax: (202) 488-
5563, or e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments
regarding document FCC 10-111 on or before the dates indicated on the
first page of this document. All filings related to this Notice should
refer to CG Docket No. 10-51. The Commission strongly encourages
parties to develop responses to this Notice that adhere to the
organization and structure of this Notice. Furthermore, the Commission
is specifically interested in concrete data or analyses that respond to
the questions in this Notice.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this matter shall be treated as
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
summaries of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing
of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description
of the views and arguments presented generally is required. Other rules
pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-
disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or
(202) 418-0432 (tty).
Paperwork Reduction Act. Document FCC 10-111 does not contain
proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any proposed information collection burden ``for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. The Commission presents document FCC 10-111 in two parts. In
part I, the Commission asks broad questions on exactly how VRS
providers should be compensated if the Commission retains the current,
multiple provider model for delivering VRS. In part II, the Commission
asks whether it should consider fundamental changes to the delivery of
VRS and market structure for the service. In both parts, the
Commission's objective is to find ways to ensure that this vital
program is effective, efficient, and sustainable. The Commission
specifically seeks comment on the most effective and efficient way to
make VRS available and to determine what is the most fair, efficient,
and transparent cost recovery methodology. The Commission expects to
complete this proceeding before Interstate TRS Fund (Fund) year 2011-
12, which begins on July 1, 2011.
Part I--Adjustments and Modifications to Improve the Current Video
Relay Service Compensation Methodology
2. Accounting Issues. In this section, the Commission asks a series
of questions about appropriate accounting methods for VRS providers.
The Commission suggests that VRS providers should all be incurring the
same types of compensable costs, and seeks comment on the extent to
which this is the case. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
part 32 continues to provide the best system of accounting for VRS
providers, along with what specific sub-accounts are appropriate to
require for all VRS providers. Next, the Commission seeks comment on
whether it should set reasonableness limits on the compensability of
costs in total or for specific cost categories, and on whether the
Commission should set limits for other types of costs, such as cash
working capital, building costs and dividend payments.
3. Company-Specific Compensation. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to establish company-specific compensation for each provider,
in order to establish a fairer methodology for all providers and to
achieve greater accuracy in matching compensation to costs than an
averaged or three-tiered system. Among other things, this section asks
commenters to address the extent to which the tiered system should
continue as is, whether a company-specific compensation methodology
that continues to disburse funds based on minutes of use would require
company-specific demand projections, or whether this type of
compensation methodology could be based on historical demand, adjusted
by an industry-wide projected growth factor to establish the size of
the fund. The Commission also seeks comment on the proper use of
historical cost information, including whether historical costs should
be used to establish compensation rates to achieve the efficient
delivery of VRS; the factors that should be applied to historical costs
to develop reasonable projected costs; and how demand growth factors
can be considered relevant to provider compensation.
4. Outreach and Marketing Costs. The Commission seeks comment on
whether, and the extent to which, the Fund should compensate providers
for outreach and marketing activities, including whether such funding
should be capped for each provider.
5. Research and Development Costs. Newly emerging communication
technologies could offer significant potential for achieving greater
functional equivalency for VRS users, and we recognize that Congress
has directed the Commission to ensure that its TRS regulations do not
discourage or impair the development of improved technology. The
Commission therefore seeks comment on whether and, if so, the extent to
which, the Commission should revise its rules to explicitly permit
compensation for research and development, as well as what controls
[[Page 41865]]
the Commission should put in place to ensure that such compensation is
provided equitably across all VRS providers.
6. Videophone Equipment. In this section, the Commission asks about
the cost, quality and availability of different videophones and how
these compare with voice telephones. It also seeks comment on actions
the Commission should take to ensure that affordable videophone
equipment is available to VRS users, and the extent to which efforts
should be made to switch VRS users over to mainstream video technology
so they can acquire phones from retail establishments rather than be
dependent on individual providers for their phones.
7. Protection of Providers from Under-Compensation and Avoidance of
Over-Compensation. The Commission seeks comment on ways to prevent
providers from being under- or over-compensated. For example, the
Commission asks about using a ``true up'' and whether it should
continue the current process for allowing providers a rate-of-return on
capital investment. Commenters should address the administrative
burdens, as well as the potential benefits of their proposals.
8. Certification. The Commission's rules currently allow potential
VRS providers to receive compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund if
they: (a) become part of a certified state program, (b) subcontract for
another entity eligible to provide TRS, or (c) receive certification
directly from the Commission. The Commission is concerned that the
current certification process does not offer adequate oversight and
assurance that certified VRS providers are offering satisfactory
service and are only seeking reimbursement for authorized service. The
Commission asks how the Commission's rules should be changed to
sufficiently deter potential fraud and abuse.
Part II--Broader and Economic Issues Concerning Video Relay Service
9. In this part, the Commission asks whether it should consider
fundamental changes to the delivery of VRS, including questions on the
structure of the VRS market. The Commission focuses on three key
issues. Among other things, the Commission seeks to ensure that the VRS
program fully serves the needs of its intended users as well as it can,
to improve the efficiencies of this program, and to reduce
opportunities for fraud and abuse.
The Components of Video Relay Service
10. VRS communications require the interaction of three separate
yet interlinked components: videophone equipment, video communication
service, and ASL relay interpreter service. Although some VRS providers
now supply all three components as a single package, we question
whether this vertical integration is necessary, and therefore separate
them for purposes of the analysis herein.
11. Videophone Equipment. The Commission seeks to understand the
types of videophone equipment most used by deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals, what functionalities they need, and what role standards-
setting should play with respect to protocols and functionalities. The
Commission specifically seeks comment on whether it is feasible for the
Commission to adopt technical standards that would ensure the
continuation of videophone equipment functionality after a consumer
switches default providers. The Commission also seeks to understand the
extent to which VRS users are limited to using videophone equipment
specifically designed for VRS use, as well as the extent to which
changes in the VRS program should occur that would allow users to
utilize off-the-shelf equipment for VRS calls.
12. Video Communication Service. The Commission asks about the
functionalities that VRS users need from video communication service
providers, and the extent to which the separation of broadband
transmission service from VRS affects what constitutes functionally
equivalent service. Several years ago, interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) was primarily provided as an over-the-top,
nomadic service. Today, many facilities-based broadband providers offer
interconnected VoIP with quality-of-service guarantees. The Commission
asks whether video communication service will witness a comparable
transition in the near future
13. Relay Interpreter Service. The Commission asks about the
functionalities that VRS users need from ASL relay interpreter
services, and the extent to which CAs have met the quality-of-service
expectations of VRS users. Parties are also asked to provide feedback
on ways that the needs of VRS users may evolve over the next three to
five years.
14. General View of VRS Components. Looking at these components
together, the Commission asks how and why VRS users currently choose or
switch their providers, including how the incentives and costs
associated with switching VRS providers differ from the incentives and
costs of switching other video communications service providers. Is
there any need for the three components described above to be
vertically integrated?
The Demand for Video Relay Service
15. In this section, the Commission seeks data about (1) The number
of current VRS users; (2) the extent to which there may be
technological barriers to using VRS; (3) the trends in VRS minutes of
use per user over time; and (4) to what extent potential VRS users are
meeting their communications needs through other means. The Commission
also seeks information about other reasons why potential users do not
actually use VRS.
The Supply of Video Relay Service
16. In this section, the Commission seeks to understand the
provision of VRS from a supplier's perspective and the obstacles that
might limit competition among VRS providers or otherwise reduce
efficiency in the provision of this service. Among other things, the
Commission notes that under the present VRS model, multiple providers
offer substantially similar services with no opportunity for price
competition. In undertaking this review, the Commission considers each
of the three components described earlier, i.e., relay interpreter
service, video communications service, and videophone equipment.
The Regulation of Video Relay Service
In this section, the Commission seeks to understand how its
regulations, including the current regime for compensating VRS
providers, have affected the structure of the market and demands on the
Fund.
17. Paying for VRS Today. The Interstate TRS Fund compensates VRS
providers using an industry-wide per-minute rate each year. The
Commission seeks comment on the existing TRS reimbursement structure
and on other aspects of its regulation of VRS.
18. The Principle of Cost-Causation. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the cost-recovery aspects of its current VRS regulations may
distort the incentives of VRS providers and, in turn, may affect the
expectations of users. When a cost causer does not internalize all the
costs it causes, the incentives of both providers and users may be
distorted. The Commission is concerned that its VRS compensation rules
may have created such economic distortions.
[[Page 41866]]
The Incentives of Providers
19. The Commission wants to ensure not only that the VRS program is
available and fully responsive to the needs of people with hearing and
speech disabilities, but also that the use of VRS is driven by real
demand, not artificial stimulation. The Commission seeks comment on
what measures it should take to better realize the goal of reimbursing
VRS providers for the costs of providing relay service, to ensure that
VRS providers have incentives to provide and promote use of VRS,
without creating incentives for VRS providers to encourage high-volume
use that VRS users would otherwise not incur. The Commission is
particularly interested in knowing: (1) How it can encourage
competition that would reduce the costs of VRS; (2) how it can channel
the efforts of VRS providers to foster innovation and improve services
for VRS users; (3) what data or analyses are particularly important to
understand in choosing how to restructure the VRS market to improve its
efficiency and effectiveness; (4) if the Commission decides to modify
either what constitutes VRS or the regulation of VRS, how it should
structure the transition to avoid service disruptions; and (5) what
institutional oversight is required at the federal and state level, and
how extensive must that oversight be to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
20. Choice of VRS Provider. The Commission seeks comment on
whether, if it decided to use competitive bids to award VRS contracts
to a single provider or a limited number of providers, there are ways
to ensure that consumers would still be able to receive functionally
equivalent service. In addition, it seeks comment on whether
competitive bidding or a single contract model could work for certain
components of VRS communications, such as the relay interpreter
component. Furthermore, it solicits comment on how, if such a contract
were to be awarded, the contract should pay the winning bidder (e.g.,
using a flat, fixed fee for service, a per-minute compensation rate, a
per-user compensation rate, or some other method).
21. Other Models. The Commission seeks comment on the merits of
applying rate-of-return regulation, modified price cap regulation,
forward-looking cost model support, or reverse auctions to the
provision of VRS. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
structural and accounting safeguards might be effective at encouraging
efficiency in the VRS market. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on
issues related to jurisdictional separations, insofar as the Commission
has thus far treated all VRS calls as interstate calls paid for by the
Fund.
The Incentives and Needs of VRS Users
22. The Commission seeks comment in this section on how to better
align the incentives of VRS users with cost-causation principles. The
Commission first seeks input on how to ensure that it properly
identifies functionally equivalent voice services and rates. The
Commission then seeks comment on how to structure any federal subsidies
to ensure that VRS providers meet the needs of VRS users without over-
compensating VRS providers.
23. Videophone Equipment. In Part I, the Commission asks numerous
questions concerning the current functionalities, costs, and
distribution of videophone equipment. These same questions equally
apply to the Commission's consideration of changes to the structure of
the VRS program in the future, and are inherently intertwined with
questions regarding what is the most effective, efficient, and
sustainable structure.
24. Individual Subsidies and Vouchers. The Commission seeks comment
on whether VRS users would be better served if the Commission did not
subsidize particular components of VRS communications, but instead
directly subsidized the VRS needs of those individuals. The Commission
also seeks input on whether it should issue vouchers directly to deaf
and hard-of-hearing individuals to spend on the end user equipment and
other components of the TRS program, such as broadband Internet access
service.
25. Consumer Incentives. The Commission seeks comment on whether,
if this is not already the case, the incentives for VRS use need to be
aligned with the cost of providing the service in a way that makes the
use of this service comparable to the use of voice communications
services. In this regard, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
lack of usage restrictions on VRS creates any incentives for VRS use
that do not exist for voice telephone use. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the cost of broadband service as a prerequisite for
VRS use is a disincentive for potential VRS users to use VRS.
Other Regulations Affecting VRS Communications
The Commission seeks input on the effect of its VRS user
registration requirements on competition among VRS providers in the
various components. In addition, it asks whether it should impose
additional reporting requirements on VRS providers, for example
separately reporting each driver of the Fund (number of users,
compensable minutes of use per user, and estimated cost per minute of
use). Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what other VRS
regulations it should adopt or modify now to prepare for the future.
Ordering Clause
Pursuant to sections 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 225, and 303(r), 47 U.S.C.
154(i)-(j), 201(b), 225, and 303(r), document FCC 10-111 is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17575 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P