Category Archives: Government

Karl White & My FOIA Request

Posted on by

On March 23, 2012, I mailed out two FOIA requests, one under federal FOIA, and another under Utah’s, to the National Center of Hearing Assessment and Management at Utah State University. This was my letter below (without the letterhead containing my contact information). The only difference between the two letters were the citations of the applicable law that my requests were based upon.

National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management
Utah State University
2615 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Utah 84322

FOIA REQUEST

Dear FOIA Officer:

Please send me a copy of the following public records:

  • The titles and abstracts of submitted proposals that were rejected by any authority working with and/or for the 2012 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention [EHDI] Annual Meeting;
  • The list of the 2012 Abstract Review Committee members and whom the individual Abstract Review Committee members were representing;
  • The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed advertisements for the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting;
  • The list of places, publications, media, etc., in which EHDI placed notices about call for papers to the 2012 EHDI Annual Meeting.

This request for information is made pursuant to the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act, UCA §§63-2-101 to -207, which requires you to respond in writing within ten (10) business days. Please advise me in writing of the estimated cost of this FOIA request, prior to filling this request, if it is estimated to be $20.00 or more.

If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you provide me with your written rationale for all deletions and/or exclusions, by reference to specific exemptions of the act. Please communicate with me by email, if you have questions regarding this request.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeannette Johnson

On April 6, 2012, Dr. Karl White emailed me, and responded with the following:

Dear Jeannette Johnson

In your letters of March 23, 2012 you requested information about how proposals for presentations and posters that were presented at the 2012 National EHDI Meeting in St. Louis were solicited, reviewed and selected. In those requests you cited the Freedom of Information Act and the Utah Government Records Access and Management Act. I don’t believe any of the information you requested is subject to the provisions of those statutes, but I am happy to provide you with answers to most of your questions anyway because we want the procedures associated with the National EHDI Meeting to be open and transparent. We are always interested in finding ways to improve the EHDI Meeting and invite your suggestions.

Attached is information about the process for soliciting, reviewing and selecting presentations and posters at the EHDI Meeting that is based on a recent response to someone who made a similar request.

You also requested information about the the titles and abstracts of rejected proposals and the names of people who reviewed the abstracts. In the attached material I have indicated where you can find the names and affiliations of the members of the Planning Committee for the 2012 National EHDI Meeting (which is a different group of people from those who reviewed proposals). The names of the people who reviewed the proposals have not been published since this is a “blind” review process and I think it would be inappropriate for me to publish those names. If people who were on the review committee want to disclose their own names, they are certainly free to do that.

I am providing you with the titles of the rejected proposals because I believe this information was sent to you by CDC in response to your FOIA request to them. I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.

Please let me know if you have additional questions or suggestions.

Karl

I quickly responded to him with the following:

Dear Dr. White:

Are you the FOIA officer for Utah State University?  From my experience with prior FOIA requests to a variety of public institutions across the country, it is my understanding that if you are not, you are obligated to forward my FOIA request to the Utah State University’s FOIA officer.

However, given your response, particularly your refusal to quote the applicable part of the statue on why this is being denied, please provide me with the name of the FOIA officer so I can send my request to the officer directly.  Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Jeannette

Dr. White replied shortly after this with the following:

Dear Ms Johnson

I am not the FOIA Officer at Utah State University. A far as I know, Utah State University has not designated an FOIA Officer. I suggest you contact the University’s legal office or the office of the Utah State Attorney General if you would like additional information . Because your initial letter was sent to me, I did my best to answer your questions.

At that point, I decided do several things, and among one was to contact the Utah State University’s Provost and ask for the FOIA officer’s contact information. The Provost, after inquiring with the university’s attorney, replied within several hours with the information. And so, I sent Craig Simper, the university’s FOIA officer, my request. Since it was sent on April 6, the results of that FOIA request is still pending.

I have to point out several things here regarding Dr. White’s responses.  I did not address the FOIA request to Dr. Karl White. If you read my letter carefully (and it was on the envelope as well), it was addressed to ‘FOIA officer’.

And it appears to me that Dr. White did not forward my FOIA letter to the appropriate officials, or even inquire with his employers whether there was a FOIA officer. Otherwise, why would he claim that to his knowledge, there was no FOIA officer at Utah State University? Given all of this, I find this to be quite a bit unusual, especially when one considers the seriousness of FOIA requests.

Furthermore, one should note that despite Dr. White’s claims of cooperation and willingness to answer questions in his initial email, I had to contact the provost in order to obtain the FOIA officer’s contact information, after his refusal to to my request for said information.

I  also find it very interesting that that except for one item which I FOIA’ed both him and the CDC for (which I might add, haven’t gotten yet from the CDC. And nor is it the only thing I asked the CDC about), Dr. White gave me information that I did not ask for. So, why did Dr. White do this? This makes me wonder whether Dr. White would have been as “helpful” to every single person who made a similar request.

Then one has to contend with how Dr. White’s response to my FOIA was done. I have had my requests both approved and denied elsewhere in the past, and his email is not how you respond to a FOIA request in any shape or form. Why was the response done in this manner? Would have he responded in a similar manner to a hearing person?

(Edited to add: If you’re curious to see one of the 3 typical response to a FOIA request is, check out http://www.ita.doc.gov/ooms/FOIASampleLtr3.pdf and compare that to Dr. White’s response to me).

And last of all, what I find to be the most intriguing is Dr. White’s second to last line in his initial email. “I hope you will not publish this information because it may be embarrassing to people whose proposals were rejected.”

Would he make this kind of statement to a hearing person making a similar request? Would he even dream of making this kind of statement to a hearing blogger or reporter?

Given Dr. White’s overall conduct, I suspect that at the very least, he has something to hide. Especially when one notes that he’s essentially filibustering by giving me what I did not ask for. I wonder what the people at the CDC, the Health Resources Service Administration and our Congresspersons has to say about all of this, if they knew. Perhaps we all should go and find out, hmm?

At any rate, we should see within a few weeks, whether my suspicions are accurate.

To be continued…

Note: I’m not publishing the rejected titles until I get an official response (either a denial or approval with applicable information) from NCHAM and/or CDC on the entire content of my FOIA requests. 

Is It Really About Parental Choices?

Posted on by

Naomi Horton, the executive director of Hear Indiana, in interviews with the media about the Indiana School of the Deaf protests said, “The discussion right now is about parent choices.”

Supporters of Ms. Horton and the Hear Indiana organization has rallied around this position. Given how central the rights of parental choices are in education, it’s to be expected. However, there has been some who have drawn upon this position to argue that all publicly funded schools, such as the Indiana School of the Deaf, has to serve all communication modalities, in order to ensure choices for parents remain available.

Hmm. Really?

Now, I didn’t particularly explore this issue in my ‘Death to Deafness’ series, because first and foremost, I am not an attorney, nor an expert on Special Education law. However, given the fact that ignorance is the the root of audism, something that is far too prevalent in the field of Deaf Education, I decided to consult someone who is an expert. Armed with facts and relevant opinions from experts, the foundation of ignorance can only but crumble away, making it difficult to perpetuate such bigotry and discrimination.

This expert whom I consulted with, authored a document that is widely considered as the bible on how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], applies to deaf and hard of hearing children.

Full disclosure: The expert that I am quoting here, also happens to be my mother.

And so, this is her opinion on this matter.

—–

-begin-

IDEA’s implementing regulations require at 34 CFR § 300.115: “Continuum of alternative placements:

(a) Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.

(b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this section must—

(1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions);” [Emphasis added.]

“Institutions” includes residential Schools for the Deaf, as does “special schools.”  Most often, D/HH students are placed at schools for the deaf because they require placement in an environment that provides immersion in the language that is fully accessible to them. [Emphasis added.]

Congregation at such a special school provides the critical mass of ASL language users needed by their students.  Oral children are immersed in English in their own homes and communities as well as the media, being that English, unlike ASL, is the language of American and Canadian communities.

Thus, unlike ASL using D/HH children, oral D/HH children do not need to congregate within a specially created community of users. Not all ASL using D/HH students need to be placed in a school for the deaf, particularly if they have sufficient access to other ASL users.

Language learning abilities and needs vary among children. What suffices for language learning for one child may be insufficient for another child. The schools for the deaf meet these language needs as well as the cultural needs of ASL using D/HH students.

The Policy Guidance for Deaf Students Education Services from the US Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights informs us:

“. . . deafness often results in significant and unique educational needs for the individual child. The major barriers to learning associated with deafness relate to language and communication, which, in turn, profoundly affect most aspects of the educational process. . . .”

Compounding the manifest educational considerations, the communication nature of deafness is inherently isolating, with considerable effect on the interaction with peers and teachers that make up the educational process. This interaction, for the purpose of transmitting knowledge and developing the child’s self-esteem and identity, is dependent upon direct communication.

Yet, communication is the area most hampered between a deaf child and his or her hearing peers and teachers. Even the availability of interpreter services in the educational setting may not address deaf children’s needs for direct and meaningful communication with peers and teachers.

“. . . it is important that State and local education agencies, in developing an IEP for a child who is deaf, take into consideration such factors as:

  1. Communication needs and the child’s and family’s preferred mode of communication;
  2. Linguistic needs;
  3. Severity of hearing loss and potential for using residual hearing;
  4. Academic level; and
  5. Social, emotional, and cultural needs including opportunities for peer interactions and communication. [Emphasis added.]

. . . The Secretary is concerned that the least restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA and Section 504 are interpreted, incorrectly require the placement of some children who are deaf in programs that may not meet the individual student’s educational needs. [Emphasis added.]

Meeting the unique communication and related needs of a student who is deaf is a fundamental part of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child. Any setting, including a regular classroom, that prevents a child who is deaf from receiving an appropriate education that meets his or her needs including communication needs is not the LRE for that individual child.”

The communication and cultural needs of D/HH students who use ASL are substantially different than the communication and cultural needs of oral deaf students.  Their needs for direct communication in their own language are at cross-purposes when provided in the same place. [Emphasis added.] 

The schools for the Deaf were established to meet the unique needs of ASL using D/HH students who, unlike their hearing and oral deaf peers, cannot have their linguistic, cultural, social and direct communication needs met in the mainstream and in the general community.

Their right to continue to have their unique communication, linguistic, social and cultural needs met in the very institutions that were designed for them, must remain undisturbed.

-end-

—–

Indeed… it is about parental choices – the lack of it. I think there is enough evidence now, to demonstrate that Hear Indiana and like-minded organizations does not truly care about parental choices, nor about what’s the best interest for deaf children on an individualized level.

If this information presented here isn’t enough, then consider this. The National Association of the Deaf recently discovered a substantial piece of information, which was then announced on their website:

… HEAR Indiana in a recent e-newsletter about the Indiana School for the Deaf Board appointments explains that the ISD budget has more than $18 million then asks its members, “Do you feel like local school districts should have a piece of the pie?”

Still think this is really about ensuring the availability of all parental choices?

Death to Deafness: Part 2

Posted on by

(Continuation from Part 1)

Today’s and the Future’s Realities on Educating the Deaf

This now leads us into the matter of the accusations made against us Deaf Community members of being in denial about today’s and the future realities of Deaf Education.

So, let’s look at some statistics regarding today’s reality in Deaf Education. It’s reported that as of April 2009, approximately 25,500 children in the country have cochlear implants.

Now, there is a specific claim regarding cochlear implants, where it is said that “profoundly deaf kids can hear and discriminate all the sounds of spoken language.” It is true for some – it is undeniable that for some profoundly deaf children, the cochlear implant does succeed in this regard.

However, if this claim was universally true, then the CI surgeons wouldn’t have a problem guaranteeing this for all who receive it. But that does not happen. Why? Because just like any other surgery, there are going to be variables in the results. This Medical Today News article indirectly acknowledges that reality. And if the CI was universally successful in this regard, then the majority of the implanted children would not be receiving special education services under IDEA. But the majority still are today.

Onwards to deaf education itself, it is reported that 52% of the deaf and hard of hearing children are taught via the speech only method. This conversely means that 46% of the deaf and hard of hearing children use signed languages and/or sign systems.

Interestingly enough, the educational environment statistic conflicts with LSL proponents’ claim that 89% of the deaf and hard of hearing children do not use signed languages or sign systems. This claim has been one method, out of several methods, in convincing naïve parents that it isn’t worth using signed languages with their deaf children.

Another method in convincing the naïve parents to favor the LSL doctrine is the argument that the State Schools of the Deaf do not perform very well on testing scores, therefore ASL must not be very good in educating deaf and hard of hearing children.

They ignore experts in the Deaf Education field, such as the superintendent of ISD’s letter to the Indy Star, citing the reason for the drag on testing scores as the result of “parents who chose only a spoken-English approach and then waited until their child failed to show progress before introducing a visual language forces a school like ISD to play catch-up.”

That is today’s reality in Deaf Education and has been for the last several decades. Same song, different verse. Why would it change anytime soon? And still, even in the face of these facts, they want us to believe their claims that technological feats will conquer all, that they accept ASL and do not actively oppose the language?

An Ideological & Pedagogical War Today – Yes or No?

Given all of this, it stands to reason that yes, indeed, the ideological & pedagogical war is still raging on today in Deaf Education. Just because the war is fought differently today, does not mean it no longer exists.

However, I must confess that I did not fully appreciate just how differently, until all of this happened. As I read up on the recent events in Deaf Education, more and more disturbing questions arose.

Such as why did the Hear Indiana executive director make this statement to the media, “… Hear Indiana does not want to eliminate sign language, she said. But ISD receives an inordinate amount of state support, Horton said, noting that it receives $18 million from the state to teach sign language to almost 350 students.”? (Source: TribTown.com IBJ.com).

This statement at first puzzled me. If I were in the shoes of the Hear Indiana executive director, my response to the media would have been: “We have had no hand in the new appointments to the ISD board. Our focus is on informing and advocating for our educational philosophy. We only involve ourselves very superficially with other entities that do not share our views.”

It is highly probable that this response would’ve been well received in the media, and it has the additional bonus of not really giving the Deaf Community anything to pounce upon. It was only when I went back and looked at a PDF by Hear USA that was written several years ago, that the pieces clicked together for me.

Hear Indiana did have a hand in the selection of the new ISD board appointees. The organization knows, from witnessing the recent entanglements of the Deaf Community with like-minded organizations, to only deny when they can get away with it.

And when Hear Indiana says they do not want to eliminate sign language, they mean they aren’t going to enter the schools and outright throw out signed languages.

After all, the International Congress on the Education of the Deaf formally rejected the resolutions of the 1880 Milan Conference. And then, there’s the sticky matter of the high probability of successful lawsuits being brought against them. Parental choices reign in the matter of education, and they have the legal right to use signed language in the instruction of their deaf children.

No, they aren’t going to outright eliminate ASL. You see, in the Hear USA PDF that was passed onto me, the last page had a list of questions that they wanted to explore. “What would it mean to conquer deafness?”

“What would businesses and institutions have to do?”

“What would be the costs?”

“Who will pay for it?”

“How would the market for implants, hearing aids, and audiology and otology services grow?”

“What and how rapid would be the impact on Gallaudet University and schools and centers for the deaf?”

“What would happen to American Sign Language and Deaf Culture?” …

And in a side box, they hypothesize that in 2010 this would happen:

Gallaudet University receives Congressional approval to expand enrollment of non-US students to 80 percent, in stages, between 2010 and 2020, so that Gallaudet can serve students from countries where hearing aids and cochlear implants are not available to the bulk of the population. This shift compensates for the declining enrollment of US students due to newborn screenings and intervention via hearing aids or implants. The legislation expands the Washington campus and deploys faculty and graduates to create campuses in Africa, Latin America, China, India and Eastern Europe; and funds Gallaudet through the World Bank and the US Agency for International Development.

Obviously, this hasn’t happened yet. But it does hint extremely well at their plans for the State Schools of the Deaf and elsewhere. We only need to look at the Utah School of the Deaf for what they will attempt nationally. In the name of budget woes, they will attempt, and already successfully did at USDB, to put ALL deaf children in one school, even with differing educational doctrines.

One administrator leading a school where you have a set of parents who want their children to be immersed in a bilingual environment, and another set of parents who want their children to only use English. Only in Deaf Education would this be acceptable.

This is a war of attrition, in where the majority surrounds the minority, and leads to fighting over resources and money, until the minority is ultimately defeated through sheer numbers.

Indeed… the Hear USA PDF names their plan very aptly. And that plan is called

Death of Deafness

More Crises With The Deaf Community

Posted on by

Note: This blog is more than just a transcript for the vlog above.

Last week, it was announced here in Michigan that the top Interpreter Training Program [ITP], located at the Lansing Community College [LCC], was being considered for suspension and reduced to an one year program. Not only is LCC the top ranked ITP in the state, it is ranked number 5 in the United States. LCC’s rationale for this suspension is due to almost no ITP graduates passing the Board for Evaluation of Interpreters [BEI].

The fact is, almost none of any ITP graduates in the entire state are passing the BEI. It is exceedingly difficult to pass the BEI due to several reasons:

  • The BEI was only very recently implemented, in the last year and half. The BEI replaced the Michigan Quality Assurance [QA] test.
  • The BEI itself is notoriously exceedingly difficult to pass. It was developed in Texas, and even the interpreters in Texas have difficulty passing it. As of 2009, according to the BEI’s website, only 39% passed the basic level, and it was even worse in the previous years before 2009.
  • There is a lack of 4 year ITPs here in Michigan. 2 years is simply just not enough to produce well-educated, fully-rounded and competent interpreters upon graduation.
  • The Division on Deafness and Hard of Hearing [DODHH] has one of the most strict rules in the country about how and where the ITP students can practice their skills in the community. At this time of writing, their ability to do so, is functionally non-existent. This is part of the reason why there is currently a bitter, profound divide between the DODHH and interpreters, ITPs and the deaf service providers.

This is on top of the Michigan State University closing its Deaf Education program, leaving no future Deaf Education teachers in the state that will be able to use American Sign Language with deaf students here in Michigan. Not only that, but also recently the Michigan School of the Deaf’s property was sold to private developers for $1.3 million. No appraisal or assessment was done on the property or buildings to see the true value or how much it would cost to renovate the buildings. The property was labeled as a brownfield, meaning it is considered to be vacant or polluted. That obviously is not the case.

Furthermore, the lease the private developers now have, requires the State of Michigan to pay rent to them for $2 million per year, for 7 years. After 7 years, the private developers can either sell back the land to the State, or sell it to someone else.  For these reasons, the Deaf Community considers the sale to be very suspicious and disturbing. And needless to say, the odds of MSD existing after 7 years aren’t very good. The future of deaf children’s education here in Michigan is very, very bleak.

As people can imagine, the announcement of the LCC ITP potential’s closure (because let’s face reality – once you suspend a program, it’s exceedingly difficult to get it back up and running again), has caused a deep upheaval with the state Deaf Community. The LCC ITP provides 51% of the interpreters in the state, and many of them work in the public schools interpreting for deaf children. If the LCC ITP goes, what’s left for us and our future?

Mind you, the LCC ITP graduates are passing the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment [EIPA] just fine. And that is a national certification test with a solid research basis to it. It is my understanding that the EIPA has not met with heavy criticism as the BEI has.

I find this whole thing disturbing on many levels, because I have noticed a trend of things beginning here in Michigan, then spreading to the rest of the country. So I would be watchful for problems in other states with their ITPs. The national Deaf Community should be concerned about this issue. I understand the State Schools of the Deaf crises is taking precedent, but I think this is also very important.

Now, last Monday I attended the LCC Board of Trustees meeting, along with dozens of other Deaf Community members, interpreters, ITP faculty and students. Approximately 10-12 of us spoke to the Board, and we did make a positive impact on them. The media was extremely interested, and covered this event very well.  And during the break, the Provost approached someone who was there. The provost was very nervous, basically saying she didn’t expect this kind of pressure, and emphasized that she did not want to do this, but was only doing this because of the DODHH and BEI situation.That situations is a convoluted and heavily political situation. So I’m not going to go in-depth here in this blog post, and many of you in Michigan already know about this anyway.

So I think it is very important for the Michigan Deaf Community, and other stakeholders such as RID, NAD and state interpreters, etc., to continue sending emails to the LCC president and provost. They are listening to us, and I, along with others, are cautiously hopeful that the LCC ITP will not be closed. But only if we keep up the pressure on LCC and start a meaningful dialogue with DODHH regarding the BEI. Because it is clear that the BEI is not helping the interpreter crisis, and is the main rationale of why LCC is deciding on whether to suspend the ITP. I hope the Deaf Community and interpreters can come together to have a conversation about how to approach this with the DODHH.

Please email the LCC President and Provost to share why keeping the ITP open is so crucial to the future of the Deaf Community here in Michigan. Their emails are: knightb4@lcc.edu and shanbls@lcc.edu.

Thank you for your support, and let’s fight for our rights, so we all can have a better future!

SBE’s *Amended* Resolution About MSU

Posted on by

The Michigan State Board of Education just released their AMENDED resolution about the MSU Deaf Education program. The new addition is at the bottom of the text.  Thank you, to the State Board of Education, especially John Austin, for doing this!

—–

State of Michigan
State Board of Education

Resolution

Michigan State University Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program

WHEREAS, The Deaf Education Teacher Preparation Program at Michigan State University’s College of Education is one of only two in the State of Michigan, and the only teacher preparation program in the State that prepares teachers for bi-lingual (American Sign Language/ASL and English) programs and services; and

WHEREAS, the proposal by the College of Education to terminate this program as well as the ASL program has significant negative consequences for the State of Michigan, its public schools, and students who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing as well as the supply of teachers; and

WHEREAS, Michigan students who enroll in Deaf Education programs in other states are less likely to return to Michigan after completion of such programs, thus increasing the exodus of Michigan citizens; and

WHEREAS, the loss of nationally prominent faculty at Michigan State University who created this federally recognized Deaf Education Program will negatively impact the training of higher education faculty in Deaf Education as well as teachers of students who are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing in Michigan; and

WHEREAS, Michigan identifies over 3,000 students as Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing and eligible for special education services annually, all of whom are entitled to special education programs and services; and

WHEREAS, the consequences of the termination of this program and the ASL program will disproportionately impact signing Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and multiply impaired students in Michigan; and

WHEREAS, not only Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing persons, but also Hearing persons without verbal language learn through the use of sign language; and

WHEREAS, the State Board of Education and the Department are dedicated to ensuring that teachers and other personnel serving children with disabilities are adequately prepared and trained; and

WHEREAS, the State Board of Education, serving as the Board for the Michigan School for the Deaf, has a Constitutional responsibility to provide leadership and general supervision over all public education, including special education services; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the State Board of Education and Michigan Department of Education request Michigan State University’s College of Education reconsider the decision to terminate the Deaf Education Teacher Preparation and ASL Programs, and be it finally

RESOLVED, that if MSU terminates its program, that Michigan State University work with the Michigan Department of Education to determine how Michigan can best continue to provide high quality diverse teacher preparation programs to train teachers to serve Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students in Michigan.

Complaint Filed Against Sorenson

Posted on by

Three Video Relay Services [VRS] companies – Purple Communications, SnapVRS and CSDVRS has filed a complaint with the Federal Communicatons Commission [FCC], against Sorenson Communications, Inc.

They are requesting that the FCC order Sorenson to halt their alleged non-compliance with the 10 digit number mandate, and degradation of service quality.  In their legal brief to the FCC, they state the following:

Sorenson has knowingly and willfully taken action to degrade its videophone [VP] equipment’s ability to fully connect with the services and equipment of other providers.  Sorenson’s actions are plainly anti-competitive and, and among other things, present a serious risk to the ability of providers effectively to connect consumers to emergency services.

They accuse Sorenson of hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data, to ensure that only Sorenson will get the Caller ID.

In addition, called parties from the Sorenson VP do not receive caller ID — even when making a VRS call through Sorenson — the lone exception being when there is a point-to-point call between two Sorenson VPs.

What does this mean? It means two things – other VP users and VRS providers will only be able to see the IP address, not the 10 digit number.  By allegedly doing this, Sorenson is preventing the deaf consumers of having equivalent access to telephone features that hearing persons are able to use. Furthermore, this also means that when Caller IDs are not shown to other VRS providers (that are not Sorenson), this will cause potentially delayed and even refusal of 911 calls.

If true, this not only violates the FCC’s mandates, but also violates the American Disabilities Act and puts VRS users at risk.

The three VRS companies believe Sorenson is deliberately doing this based on two reasons:

  • Sorenson is allegedly hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data.
  • Sorenson has ignored repeated requests for clarification from other companies on this matter, with the exception of responding once, pointing to a still pending proposal, ‘Relay Provider Interface’.

In the legal brief, the plantiffs state that while it is true that the proposal will resolve this matter, it is still awaiting FCC’s response.  The VP consumers cannot afford delays on the Caller ID matter, especially when it comes to being able to make emergency calls.

Not only that, but ironically in response to the plantiffs’ concerns, Sorenson clearly exhibited knowledge of industry standards and protocols, which gives them no excuse for not complying.

This is going to be very interesting to watch as it unfolds. If the allegations are true – which I believe to be – their conduct is absolutely deplorable and not only does Sorenson deserve this complaint, but they also deserve a mass exodus of their consumers.

Note: I contacted Sorenson this morning asking for comments on this. So far I have not gotten any.

UPDATE: Sorenson responded to my email and said they had no comment on this matter.