VRS Reform: Will Anyone Wade in to Save the Sign Language Interpreter?

The October 15, 2012 Public Notice released by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has sent another wave of distress crashing over top of the already apprehensive sign language interpreters working in support the nation’s Video Relay Service (VRS). As Sign language interpreter under waterthese interpreters, awash in the regulatory storm of VRS reform, reach out for the relationships, practices, and leadership that have anchored them in the past, they appear to find themselves largely alone in rough and rising waters.

It has been nearly 12 months since the FCC dropped it’s December 15, 2011 FNPRM seeking substantial comment on the structure and practices of the nation’s VRS program, the last in Docket 10-51. With that filing, I found myself wondering if there is anyone—individual or entity—positioned to successfully snatch sign language interpreters from these troubled waters by prevailing upon regulators with a solution that more centrally considers functional equivalency and the plight of the sign language interpreter who makes that possible.

The Latest Signal From the FCC

The October 15, 2012 Public Notice released by the FCC is an indication to VRS stakeholders (consumers, interpreters, providers, educators, and industry associations) of it’s consideration of the TRS Fund Administrator’s (RLSA) October 15, 2012 Supplemental Filing, which proposes a transition to a cost-based model of reimbursement, resulting in deep cuts to the per minute reimbursement rate.

The RLSA proposes an immediate reduction of 11-15% to the rates paid to providers, with further reductions to follow in subsequent years. The aim being to move reimbursement rates towards the “weighted average cost per minute” of $3.51, as calculated by RLSA. The “initial” cut proposed, or something similar that the FCC ultimately approves, is likely to occur soon after the first of the year.

Unfortunately, for VRS users, sign language interpreters and providers, the targeted average cost of $3.51 per minute is 31%-44% below the current tiered reimbursement rates, which range from $6.24-$5.07 per minute. Adoption of a cost-based model and significant cuts to the current reimbursement rate will only intensify the impact of the reform on VRS users and sign language interpreters working to deliver it.

What’s the Impact?

In response to the December 15, 2011 FCC FNPRM referenced above, I wrote, Will Sign Language Interpreters Remain Silent on FCC VRS Reform? In that post I stated that should VRS reform occur without specific recognition for the cost and commitment of employing certified interpreters via a reimbursement rate differential, it would serve a damaging blow to the longevity of employing credentialed, qualified interpreters in VRS settings.

I offered then, and still believe, that the practical impacts of this fundamental failure are largely twofold:

1.   The ultimate compromise of the functional equivalency of VRS.

Should the proposed rate reduction occur, providers would be forced to make fundamental shifts in their businesses in order to survive. As stated in my post referenced above, some of these shifts will almost certainly include to amp up performance expectations, decrease wages, and hire less-qualified practitioners in order to find cost savings. The necessity of being more efficient will result in an erosion of the quality, and therefore the functional equivalency, of VRS.

2.    The destabilization of the sign language interpreting profession.

The cost pressures will inevitably be too much for the smallest of the handful of providers remaining today. As such, the sign language interpreting industry will continue to see a consolidation of opportunity. This consolidation and the tremendous pressure to be efficient will result in fewer opportunities for credentialed, qualified interpreters to work in VRS settings.

The natural consequence of this declining opportunity will be an imbalance in the industry’s supply (excess number of qualified, credentialed interpreters looking for work) vs. demand (organizations and agencies seeking to hire interpreters) equation. With a greater number of sign language interpreters competing for decreasing opportunity a dog-eat-dog erosion of the best practices—designed to protect the accuracy of an interpreter’s work and their very health and wellbeing—will ensue.

In my view, the results of this supply vs. demand imbalance and the erosion of best practices will also impact interpreters working in Community settings. With rates and opportunity decreasing in VRS, the more highly qualified interpreters will start competing for Community work, which will lead to reducing rates for community work.

There are no safe-havens from VRS reform.

In my mind, these impacts are as real and relevant today as the day they were offered last year. In some cases, they are already being seen and experienced as shared by Karen Graham in her piece, Sign Language Interpreters: The Unintended Victims of VRS Regulation Change.

Again, adoption of a cost based approach to rate setting and deep rate cuts, as proposed by RSLA, will only accelerate the impact of this reform on D/deaf and Hard-of-Hearing users of the service and sign language interpreters working to deliver it.

A Call for Heroes and Heroines

At this point, sign language interpreters need someone—individual or entity—with the expertise and resources willing to wade into the rough water. Interpreters need someone willing to demonstrate that the work they do is central to the meaning of functional equivalency. Further, that an interpreter’s continued commitment to their craft and profession is fundamental to the interests and success of all VRS stakeholders.

Unfortunately, the FCC’s mistrust of providers; their perception that providers are motivated by self-interest when advocating for interpreters; and the resource challenge historically faced by industry associations to organize and mobilize support, will likely continue to leave sign language interpreters awash in the reform.

Will anyone wade in and extend a hand to the sign language interpreter?

The Truth?

There will be no caped crusader, individual or entity.

Clearly, the FCC’s disposition relative to providers and cost-reduction won’t change quickly enough to position them to help. Industry associations will not suddenly find themselves with lined coffers and new infrastructure to organize and mobilize meaningful support. Sadly, the remaining VRS stakeholders will serve only to amplify the volume of the shouting and cross-direction offered regarding how and where sign language interpreters can find their footing and protect their interests in the reform.

Is there any hope?


Survival is Up to Us!

We need to empower ourselves in order to survive!

Given the regulatory and economic environment and the relative progress of the reform, we must be organized, disciplined, and consistent. We need to ensure that the FCC understands the challenged position of the sign language interpreter in the reform and the responsibility they have to the human performance side of the VRS system.

What should we do?

Mobilize. Mobilize! Mobilize!!

In order to be recognized by the FCC, we are left with little choice but to muster our own motility.

How can we do this?

1.    File Public Comment

It is important that every sign language interpreter file comment with the FCC. In my post, FCC VRS Reform Part II: Sign Language Interpreters File Public Comment, I offered detailed instruction on how to post comment to the FCC.  We need to do this more now than ever.

It is important to note that we have until November 14th to file comment on the proposed rate structure—then an opportunity to file again prior to November 29th. Please follow the guidelines and remember that you are submitting comment on a public forum. Post responses from a solution orientation.

Join me in advocating for the future of our collective quality of life by filing comment?

Need talking points? You can find a few here.

2.    Enroll Our Partners

We need to enroll, prod if necessary, all those that share an interest in the functional equivalency of VRS. We need to request that they stand up and take action now. We need to place calls to each and every VRS stakeholders and communicate our expectation that they join in the effort.

Let’s not forget that our Senators and Congressional Representatives are also our partners.  We should be sending them letters as well seeking their support.

We should not assume that anyone is standing with us until they are.

3.    Petitions of Support

It is essential to demonstrate the impact of the reform on everyone touched by VRS. While friends and family members may not be inclined to file public comment, we should encourage them and all our colleagues to sign petitions in support of a rate differential for certified interpreters in order to protect functional equivalency.

Sign and forward this petition of support to get the ball rolling.

4.    Rally at the FCC

While it may be considered a tactic of the past, civil disobedience in the form of a rally would go far in gaining the attention of the FCC. Let’s be prepared to employ this tactic if it becomes necessary to convince the FCC that we do not intend to be a quiet casualty of the reform.

While I am not familiar with what it takes to organize a rally, I am certainly willing to help.  Anyone interested in helping to organize an effort? If yes, you can Facebook me here.

Donate to the effort by clicking here.

5.    Other Tactics

While I think filing public comments and a rally will go far to gain the attention of the FCC, I do think we should reinforce our plight with the FCC by doing the following:

A. Mobile Billboards. Organize an effort to drive billboards past the FCC reminding them to not forget the sign language interpreter in the reform.

Interested in helping to organize and coordinate this effort? If yes, you can Facebook me here.

Donate to the effort by clicking here.

B. Social Media Blitz. Organize an effort to bring VRS stakeholders together to talk about the impact of the proposed rate reduction on functional equivalency and the ability to hire certified interpreters. Publish the interviews widely.

Interested in helping to organize and coordinate an effort? Know a graphic designer or videographer? If yes, you can Facebook me here.

Donate to the effort by clicking here.

6.    Friends of the Sign Language Interpreter—Political Action Fund

In my mind, it is necessary for sign language interpreters to create and contribute to a fund to lobby congress and the FCC. This will position sign language interpreters to have an independent voice that is free from the politics, economic implications, inexperience and mistrust that has to date prevented interpreters from finding their footing.

Is someone familiar with setting up this type of thing? I have some ideas, but experience would speed up the effort. Interested in organizing, coordinating, and/or donating to the effort? If yes, Facebook me here.

Interested in donating to the effort? Facebook me and I will provide updates if we can get something set up.

Let’s Be Careful

While this is in fact a survival activity, it is important to maintain a level of respect for other VRS stakeholders. By maintaining respect, we are better able to thoughtfully consider how to best achieve our ambitions while maintaining relationships with our partners. It is essential that we remember that this isn’t a zero sum proposition. Each VRS stakeholder can be successful if we remember that every action has a reaction.

In addition to maintaining respect, we would do well to avoid the following:

1.    Knee Jerk Reactions.

We should not give control at the discussion table to anyone but us. Our partners haven’t done well representing our interests at the FCC. It is time for us to marshal our collective genius and do the dirty work we have avoided to date.

2.    Creating Inertia.

Placing the field or ourselves in a position that limits our ability to adapt quickly to a rapidly changing environment.

3.    Avoid Unionization.

We should not unionize. No one can better articulate the impacts of VRS reform without consideration for human performance than the sign language interpreter. Let’s set up a political action fund and do a more effective job without the long-term damage to the ability sign language interpreters have to represent themselves. Not to mention the time period for effective action on VRS rate reform is far too short for such an effort to be successful.

4.    Making it About the Money.

Avoid conversation about this being about money for the sign language interpreter. This is about pushing the FCC to recognize what it takes to offer a functionally equivalent service and the commitment interpreters make to their consumers and careers by pursuing certification.

This is urgent. We are nearly out of time to impact real change.

Let’s avoid engaging in actions that contribute to the erosion of the trust needed for consumers, interpreters, providers, industry associations and the FCC to navigate the reform to positive ends.


While it can be uncomfortable to be faced with the pace of continued change in VRS regulation, let’ not allow our own paralysis to enable the careless treatment of functional equivalency and the devaluation of the credentials and contributions of the sign language interpreter, to go on without adamant opposition.

At the end of the day, our survival in the reform depends on us. If you value your profession, the definition under which you do you work, and the diversity VRS brings sign language interpreting industry, you too have an interest in making your voice heard at the FCC.

While it appears that the FCC is prepared for an acceptable number of casualties in the name of efficiency, will you allow sign language interpreters be found among them?


Tags: , , , ,

About the Author

Brandon is a nationally certified sign language interpreter and passionate industry entrepreneur. He has worked on both the practicing and business sides of the industry for the past 15 years. His father is deaf and his mother is a sign language interpreter. He is a devoted father and husband and enjoys the sport of triathlon.

24 Enlightened Replies

Trackback  •  Comments RSS

  1. Karen Graham says:

    Brandon – I agree 100% – it is essential that interpreters become involved with this discussion now! The impact on functional equivalency and the potential for erosion in the interpreter community will be staggering.

  2. Well said, Brandon, for the most part. Well, the whole thing was well said, I just am not sure I agree with you on a couple of issues.

    Of course we need to respond to the FCC. I have asked my company for talking points and heard nothing. Thank you for those that you provided.

    If the FCC is wary of VRS providers coming forward with their lobbying, won’t they be doubly wary of US as interpreters? After all, we are the central point in this. Without interpreters (qualified or un-), there aren’t VRS providers … yet, won’t we be viewed as money-grubbing folks who want to keep our jobs and make more money?

    I don’t share your vision of the future, that we will glut the market when some of the smaller VRS companies close. I believe that the largest company will prevail and have to pick up the slack.
    That will result in employment for many who are out of luck because our companies folded. I’m not saying it will be pretty, or that the compensation for most of us will be the same, but the service will still be needed and the company that prevails will no doubt be hiring.

    I work for Purple and like working for Purple. I’d hate for my own company to fold under this financial pressure.

    I intend to write, and would contribute to a political action fund. Can we lobby RID’s political arm to speak for us? I’m happy to do that as long as someone speaks with me to make sure I don’t miss anything.

    • Lindsey,

      I am pleased to know you will be commenting and you are interested in contributing to funds that will assist the voice of sign language interpreters being heard at the FCC. I’ll let you know as the political action fund concept develops.

      It is possible, to your point, that the FCC may be “doubly wary” of interpreters and see us as “money-grubbing folks” as we advocate for a rate differential for use of certified practitioners.

      In my mind, the adoption of a rate differential is more about regulatory recognition for the role sign language interpreter’s play in reinforcing the functional equivalency of VRS than it is about monies being funneled to sign language interpreters and providers. In my mind, this would help providers prioritize credentialed interpreters as they restructure their companies to contain costs in order to survive the ensuing rate reductions.

      I agree with your comment that should the smaller providers give way to the weight of regulation and rate reduction that the largest of VRS providers will have some opportunity to extend to interpreters. With that said, I would suggest that it will be in no way a one-for-one proposition. Meaning, each interpreter needed by the smaller providers to support their hours of operation and compliance with regulations won’t be needed by the largest provider. Not to mention that the deflating rate will also prove complicating for those that have access to these limited VRS opportunities.

      Practically, in my mind, it will mean a larger number of interpreters in the community seeking work, which will have an impact on rates and practices there too.

      I think asking RID to get involved is great. I don’t know that you should be concerned about saying anything wrong. It is just important that we get as many voices echoing down the halls of the FCC as possible. Regardless, if you want to chat you can send me note via Facebook and we can arrange a convenient time.

      Thanks for commenting!

      • Thanks, Brandon. I see your point about interpreters moving into the community. I think we just look at this differently.

        I’ll get with you to chat about what to emphasize when I contact RID.

  3. Laura says:

    Thank you Brandon for your work in keeping up this website and the many articles that keep us informed.
    This article on VRS reform said that we must call other stakeholders into the fray. I totally agree. Living in a rural area I have often seen that any advocacy interpreters do on their own part is seen as self serving. We really need the Deaf Community to demand quality services; then the big businesses will have to hire the best.

    • Laura,

      Thanks for your comment. You make an extremely important point.

      The largest and most effective voice in urging the FCC to adopt a rate differential for use of certified interpreters is the Deaf Community.

      I am sure they will join the effort. While their voice may have a stronger impact influencing the FCC, it doesn’t excuse a failure on our part to advocate for adoption of a reimbursement rate differential.

      Thanks for commenting.

  4. Ryan says:

    Hello VRS interpreters!

    I read with interest at the concerns that have been raised and explained in this posting.

    As a manager of a interpreter business in Australia, we are currently on the cusp of VRS interpreting boom. To date, we use a substandard Internet speed that prevents a service being a preferred choice but instead, VRS is an alternative when no other options are available. In Australia, Skype is the system that is most commonly used.
    Irrespective of the booking type (VRS or face to face) all bookings are booked at a minimum of 2 hours. This ensures security for the interpreter.

    I’m not clear on the VRS proposed changes you have written about. I’ve no doubt all interpreters in your country are familiar with the situation but for interested parties abroad, it’s unclear. I suppose what I’m needing clarification on, is this:

    If the pay rate for VRS interpreters is reduced, does this mean that less experienced interpreters are willing to work for this rate and the only ones who are prepared to work for this rate are less experienced interpreters?

    What do you mean by reimbursement? This is a term not used in Australia. Essentially, interpreters paid their interpreters at the ore determined pay rate and invoice the client for the hourly rate. Is this what you mean by reimbursement?

    Do VRS interpreters work only per minute or is there a minimum payment that is paid and then per minute added?

    Responses to this approach would be very much appreciated. As we are on the cusp of VRS interpreting, a guide to the preferred and expected guidelines would be very useful.

  5. Can someone explain to me why the current rate for VRS is dramatically higher than the current rate for VRI? The article stated the current rate for VRS is $6.24-$5.07 per minute and a new rate of $3.51 is being suggested. I believe it is accurate to say that the average rate for ASL VRI is in the $3.00 to $3.50 range today.

    Perhaps there are issues I don’t understand, but on the surface it seems something is very wrong to have such a dramatic difference in rates between a government paid service and a private paid service when the services are very similar. (Some would say nearly identical services!)

    • Daryl Crouse says:

      First, VRS is not government paid. There is no government money that is used to pay for interstate relay services (IP Relay, VRS, etc.). The state level does have a state surcharge. There is no surcharge or tax collected from telephone customers for interstate relay. The telephone company’s individually contribute into a private bank account based on a formula which they agreed to allow the FCC to determine as a neutral party years and years ago in order to fulfill their obligation under the ADA. Imagine if your local bar association got together and each attorney paid $100 into a fund every year and any member of the bar association in the area could hire and interpreter and the fund would pay for that accessibility service. There is no difference between the interstate relay fund and that example. AT&T stated that position most recently in court documents to reaffirm its long held understanding of how the fund is organized. This is probably the most misunderstood fact about VRS and one that the Department of Justice doesn’t even seem to understand because they regularly point to a telephone bill surcharge for a state relay service in regards to interstate services. It confounds me why this would happen but it does and it gets repeated over and over on CBS.

      There are a number of factors which are part of the cost structure for VRS that are more extensive and resource intensive than VRI. True, a VRS provider would experience economies of scale, “cost savings” when providing VRI because the infrastructure is already in place.
      1. speed of answer, the number one factor effecting staffing levels which are not present in VRI. VRI is more predictable and planned out which reduces the need for overflow staff.

      2. telecommunications infrastructure, there is no inherent need for automated call distribution (ACD) in VRI, though a VRS provider would enjoy the additional functionality from an ACD.

      3. VRI can be billed in any number of schemes which may include equipment rental fees which are used to offset usage fees.

      Hope this helps. Feel free to read more of my musings around here and at http://www.terplink.com

      • Thanks for your insight here, Daryl. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

      • Hello Daryl,

        You clearly have a deep understanding of the funding process but it is misleading to say that VRS is not government funded. The service is free to its users and a pool of money is paid to VRI providers. Without government involvement and the ADA there would be no such fund. (A good thing.) The money eventually comes from the public since companies have to absorb and pass along these costs that going into the funds.

        There are two basic ways to provide VRI. By appointment or on demand like VRS. It is true that if it is done by appointment technology needs are less. However, the market is demanding true on demand VRI and in that case the technology needs of VRI and VRS are virtually identical. (Click a button for the language you want, get connected to that skilled interpreter in HD video.)

        • Daryl Crouse says:

          How is it misleading to say that it isn’t government funded? Please help me understand where you’re coming from. I understand your point about the ADA, that establishes the legal duty to provide accessible telecommunications.

          Assuming customers were charged directly (which they are not) that would still not be government funds. The money has to actually touch the treasury before it is considered government funds.

          The contribution is a factor based on revenues and is calculated and deducted after customers are charged. It is not a charge built into telephone service itself. In terms of accounting, it’s a below the line charge.

        • Daryl Crouse says:

          As a reference, this is from an AT&T Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim in LYTTLE v. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, L.L.C.. A text relay agent trying to claim that AT&T knew and was involved in the Nigerian scam calls previously.

          “The United States Does Not Provide Or Reimburse Any Portion Of The Money Requested From The TRS Fund Administrator.

          To establish a “claim” under the prior definition in the former Section 3729(c) or the second prong of the current definition in Section 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii), Relator must demonstrate that the Government “provided” or “reimburse[d]” a portion of the money sought. FCC regulations classify IP Relay as an interstate telecommunications service and require that interstate carriers annually contribute amounts to the TRS Fund that will, in aggregate, cover all the costs of interstate TRS. 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A); see also 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(3)(B). If TRS Fund revenues are insufficient in any given year, the FCC regulations require the Fund to borrow funds commercially to make compensation payments and to increase required contributions in future years to pay off the loans. 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(A), (B). Any such loan is not guaranteed by the United States but is “secured by future years’ contributions” to the Fund. Id. Thus, the United States neither “provides . . . any portion of the money” nor “reimburses” the TRS Fund. Accordingly, regardless of whether TRS funds are characterized as “regulatory fees,” FAC ¶ 106, AT&T’s requests for reimbursement were not “claims” that are subject to the FCA. ”

          AT&T lays out the entire history and the legal perspective that I’ve been talking about for years in this case.

  6. Tamara Moxham says:

    I think the biggest hurdle is that our profession is so small that the same individuals wear many hats. To outside entities such as the FCC when the person who claims to be representing interpreters in a neutral bargaining role is also an agency owner, this will of course be suspect even if motives are 100% pure.

    • Tamara,

      Thanks for joining the discussion.

      I would agree that it is a small number of individuals that historically have positioned themselves, and/or their resources, to be of support to the profession (outside of daily practice). This does, as you suggest, create a difficult dynamic when the challenges facing the field are political, financial, and/or ethical.

      This would be one of the reasons that I believe the establishment of a Political Action Fund is an important step to our finding an strong political voice. It would grant the field an opportunity to crowd source resources to engage a level of expertise that we don’t currently have available to support our interests. Particularly, in the regulatory arena.

      I am hopeful that we can get past our own apathy and help secure the future of our field.


  7. Daryl Crouse says:


    I agree with a lot of your assessment. Over the years I successfully advocated for better economics and standards at the FCC. I finish law school in December with a J.D. from Kaplan University, Concord Law School and coursework on the Americans with Disabilities Act at New York Law School.

    My FCC Advocacy
    1) Certification program – my initial advocacy for the certification program included barriers to entry to prevent inappropriate white label relationships and other “snake oil salesmen” from entering the marketplace in search of gold. Unfortunately, the FCC in a fund balance fever during new management taking over in the Disability Rights Office served against our profession to various degrees.

    I can confidently say the certification program I advocated for, and worked the offices of the FCC for over a year, was beneficial to our profession’s economic foundation. The subsequent “improvements” are not serving anyone well.

    2 – interoperability via SIP adoption – it is true interoperability would occur regardless, but in 2006 the plan being considered used antiquated regulatory paradigms first used to achieve ASCII to Baudot TTY interoperability.

    I began advocating the adoption of Session Initiated Protocol as the foundation of a open standards based platform that would interact with the rest of the telecommunications world. At the time, you would have thought I suggested we all put on flight suits and head for the moon.

    Thankfully, level heads and conversations prevailed. Today, we enjoy direct dial telephone video numbers, E911, device registration with various preference settings features, all based on the international standard of Session Initiated Protocol and its progeny technology.

    Among a lot of other qualifications – run a thriving agency, starting the first interpreter owned telephone company, etc. I threw my hat in the ring for the RID Executive Director position. I am under no illusion that any of these things would guarantee someone the job.

    One of my suggestions in the my application was to consider establishing a foundation or a PAC that would take on the political work of the profession. As you may know, it would not be the first time for the concept. The national association of court reporters has a Political Action Committee working for the members of that profession, why not us?

    To my dismay (I know how this will probably sound) I did not get an opportunity to interview for the job. I am sure there are many extremely qualified people that applied but I would think an interview possible (yes, I know how that statement sounds)

    Your call for someone to take on this role is a needed one. The reality is that requires time, money and resources.

    Our professional organization and its board must hear and heed that call. Only time will tell if they are successfully plowing a road of prosperity ahead for each and every interpreter.

  8. Laura Garrett says:

    Brandon, I respect and admire the depth to which you have thought this through and proposed action. As a dues-paying member of RID it is disheartening for me to realize and accept that the professional organization I subscribe to is rarely pro-active on behalf of its members, and from what I can tell, is not apparently anywhere near the forefront of this issue.

    • Tamara Moxham says:

      We have to remember that the RID is not a union which means it has no collective bargaining power. The government liaison position is new and we are still settling into the role.

  9. Hello all and Daryl above~
    I am not a VRS interpreter…no call centers nearby and not willing to leave family for half week at a time. I also have seen injuries to interpreters working the kinds of schedules required for VRS terps…

    I need to get clarification…I have always understood via multiple sources that the TTY relay and VRS relay services are funded by the tax on everyone’s phone bills. The FCC sets regulatory standards, and reimburses or pays the VRS centers by the minute for services provided under the mandate of the ADA.

    Daryl described a different process: the various phone companies, to avoid lawsuits under the ADA, self-contracted to contribute to a joint fund at amounts set by the FCC, to establish TRS services satisfying the ADA.

    Wow. That suprises me. I’ve never been clear on where the money comes from to fund the growing demand and expense of round-the-clock VRS services.

    Regarding interpreting and the human component…we are not machines and the true cost of providing quality, functionally equivalent communication on demand by professionally credentialled interpreters needs to be realistically evaluated and compensated. Maintaining or establishing credential requirements (RID/NAD/EIPA etc…)for employment is absolutely essential in our field. No credentials, no employment. Want a job? Get the credentials. Interpreting is a skills based profession.

    Thanks for posting!!!

    • Judi says:

      Completely agree with this Shelly.

      Regarding interpreting and the human component…we are not machines and the true cost of providing quality, functionally equivalent communication on demand by professionally credentialled interpreters needs to be realistically evaluated and compensated. Maintaining or establishing credential requirements (RID/NAD/EIPA etc…)for employment is absolutely essential in our field. No credentials, no employment. Want a job? Get the credentials. Interpreting is a skills based profession.

    • Daryl Crouse says:


      The basic thing to remember is there are two jurisdictional arenas for relay:

      Intrastate (a call to/from the same state) – ADA allows but does not mandate a state to offer relay. All states have but could decide to de-certify which would default the phone companies in that state to the interstate system. The ADA allows states to impose a surcharge on all rate payers (phone, paging, wireless customers) in that state. This is the line item often misunderstood to include VRS, IP Relay, et. al.

      Interstate (a call from one state to a different state) – because internet types of relay are considered to be interstate because they can’t (couldn’t before and haven’t done anything about) identify the origination point or the termination point whichever is the Deaf caller, this is where the interstate relay fund comes into play. The ADA explicitly states that rate payers and users cannot be charged for relay. That is why there is no line item on your phone bill for interstate relay.

  10. Judi says:

    My concern is this: The FCC is purely looking at numbers, dollars, stats(ASA, etc). If the rate of reimbursement is dropped by 58%, yes, that will affect each of the providers operating budgets as well. This will then affect each working interpreter, whether in wages, benefits, or what-have-you.

    I do advocate for Certified Sign Language Interpreters in this field. There are so many different topics, scenarios, customers, language bases, thrown at us at any given moment, I believe experience and certification are key.

    What the FCC may not realize is that with a certified interpreter, each call will inherently be handled more efficiently. By cutting the rates, if all the providers fall back and use non/pre-certified interpreters, the quality of the service may go down, calls will take longer, etc, therefore affording no savings to the FCC anyway.

    I am quite concerned, and do plan to post comment to the FCC as well.

  11. Ricardo I. Ortiz says:

    Hello Everyone:

    RID is actually involved already in this discussions with the FCC. In fact they recommended favorably the use of Nationally RID Certified interpreters for the VRS setting. My understanding is that the FCC approved the requirement already. How exactly will this be possible with the reduced rate, I’m not sure.

    Here is the link to RID’s comment on the issue: http://www.rid.org/userfiles/File/RID_Comment_FNPRM_March92012.pdf. If you want to search for more information or contact the appropriate parties within RID you can go to: http://www.rid.org/aboutRID/leadership/index.cfm/AID/41, look for Janet Bailey. She is the Government Affairs Representative and she is the POC between the RID and the FCC. Her email is:govtaffairs@rid.org.

    Ricardo Ortiz.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *