Phone program for deaf is questioned

Subsidized videophones are popular, but some say that costs are too high.

January 25, 2009|By Bob Fernandez, Inquirer Staff Writer
Image 1 of 2
  • Larry Taub makes a phone call on a videophone, which allows users to communicate with a relay center through sign language.
  • Larry Taub makes a phone call on a videophone, which allows users to communicate with a relay center through sign language.
  • Larry Taub of the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf demonstrates an old teletype phone used by the deaf.

Capt. Kirk and his unforgettable "Beam me up, Scotty" introduced a generation to the concept of videophones on the 1960s drama series Star Trek. The phones are now a reality - for more than 100,000 deaf people.

The futuristic phones exploded in popularity when the Federal Communications Commission began, in late 2000, to reimburse companies for staffing call centers with sign-language interpreters.

The deaf beam themselves into the hearing world by calling the government-subsidized sign interpreters on a videophone. The sign interpreters then place a call and repeat, or relay, the deaf person's conversation to a hearing person.

The service is undoubtedly a benefit to deaf individuals. But supercharged growth and business practices in the new industry have raised serious concerns about the price tag for the public.

Story continues below.

The market for video, Internet and other relay services for the deaf could soon top $1 billion a year, up from less than $50 million in the late 1990s.

Sorenson Communications Inc., of Salt Lake City, which calls itself "the phone company for the deaf," is the dominant provider as both a videophone manufacturer and a provider of sign interpreters at video-relay call centers.

Thomas Chandler, the chief of the FCC disability-rights office, said in 2007 internal e-mails that the video-relay program was a "classic fleecing of America." The government, he said, was reimbursing companies for it at "ridiculously high rates."

A congressional committee agreed in a December 2008 report that concluded consumers were overpaying. Relay services for the deaf are paid through a surcharge on everyone's long-distance phone bills.

The FCC also has heard complaints that video-relay companies offer sweepstakes games and other incentives to a captive market of deaf users to inflate videophone usage, and thus reimbursements from an FCC-controlled fund.

For many years, business compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was viewed as a marginal cost of doing business. Big phone companies provided a teletype service at cost and earned an 11.25 percent return on investment in equipment.

This decade, though, the FCC tried something new. It backed the brand-new video-relay industry and agreed to finance start-up business expenses, marketing, outreach training and executive compensation. The expenses were built into per-minute rates for video display.

With this opportunity, companies rushed to enter deaf-related telecom services, the largest being video.

1 | 2 | 3 | Next »
|
|
|
|
|