*Pages 1--1 from  Microsoft Word - 58283.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  06-  88 
 CONCURRING  STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 


 Re:  Telecommunications  Relay  Services  and  Speech-  to-  Speech  Services  for  Individuals  with  Hearing  and  Speech  Disabilities,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  CG  Docket  No.  03-  123 
 Video  Relay  Service  (VRS)  is  an  increasingly  important  tool  for  those  portions  of  the  deaf  and  hard  of  hearing  community  who  rely  on  American  Sign  Language  (ASL).  VRS  allows  ASL  and  hearing 
 individuals  to  have  real-  time  conversations  that  more  closely  mirror  the  speed  and  natural  flow  of  voice-to-  voice  conversations.  VRS  opens  a  world  of  new  communications  opportunities  for  many  senior 
 citizens,  children,  and  others  who  may  be  unable  to  type  on  a  TTY  phone  easily.  Users  of  VRS  rely  on  these  services  not  only  to  communicate  with  friends  and  family,  but  also  to  run  successful  businesses, 
 reach  operators  in  the  event  of  an  emergency,  and  complete  everyday  tasks  that  many  of  us  take  for  granted. 


 Among  the  issues  raised  in  this  Order  is  the  Commission’s  process  for  determining  the  “reasonable  costs”  that  may  be  recovered  from  the  TRS  Fund  by  VRS  providers.  During  the  past  three  years,  the  rate-setting 
 process  has  presented  a  variety  of  open  questions  and  controversy  among  providers  and  consumers.  In  this  Order,  the  Commission  finds  that  the  neither  the  Bureau  nor  the  TRS  Administrator 
 violated  the  Commission’s  rules  in  setting  compensation  rates  for  the  2004-  05  funding  year,  a  finding  that  provides  a  degree  of  closure  for  a  funding  period  now  two  years  removed. 


 Working  together,  the  Commission  has  taken  important  steps  to  improve  VRS  over  the  past  year.  I  particularly  appreciate  the  fine  work  of  our  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  on  VRS  issues 
 during  this  time.  Yet,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  rate  setting  process,  the  Commission  can  raise  the  bar  and  improve  VRS  for  all  participants.  I  limit  my  support  for  this  Order  to  a  concurrence  because  it  is 
 imperative  that  the  Commission  take  up  comprehensively  the  broader  questions  raised  about  the  VRS  rate  setting  process.  Providers  have  urged  us  to  inject  more  transparency  and  predictability  into  this  process, 
 and  I  have  called  on  the  Commission  to  engage  in  this  sort  of  review.  It  is  absolutely  critical  that  the  Commission  provide  oversight  to  ensure  that  our  VRS  compensation  rate  is  limited  to  “reasonable  costs,” 
 the  standard  articulated  in  our  rules.  At  the  same  time,  we  also  have  an  obligation  to  ensure  that  providers  have  adequate  notice  of  how  we  will  apply  this  standard,  so  that  they  can  plan  their  operations 
 accordingly. 
 I  continue  to  believe  that  this  sort  of  comprehensive  review  and  the  development  of  predictable  and  transparent  rules  would  benefit  providers,  contributors,  and  the  many  consumers  with  and  without  hearing 
 disabilities  who  rely  on  VRS.  I  look  forward  to  working  with  my  colleagues,  our  CGB  staff,  members  of  the  TRS  Advisory  Committee,  and  the  many  members  of  the  disabilities  community  on  these  issues  as  we 
 move  forward. 
1