Economic Power

Economic power is what gives you that freedom to do what you want to do. But with economic powers come with greater responsibilities not to yourself but to other people as well who helped. Not too long ago Ryan Commerson produced a video that was published on August 4, 2011 on asking salient questions on the lack of deaf-owned businesses, why economic power continues to be beyond their grasp, how some companies in the telecommunication industry continue to cater to and take advantage of the deaf and hard of people their money with little or no real representation or support on their behalf and noting the fact that there is only one deaf-owned VRS company out of many VRS companies (but certainly there are some deaf-run companies). At one minute and 40 seconds into the video Former executive director of TDI, Alfred Sonnenstrahl, was at a loss for words when asked a question by Ryan Commerson if there are any deaf-owned VRS companies.



Perhaps Mr. Sonnenstrahl wasn't thinking about ConvoRelay which is a deaf-owned and operated VRS company that was founded in March 2009. On the FCC website it lists telecommunication companies that offer VRS (although ConvoRelay isn't on the list).

The FCC over the last few years had to address the high cost of re-reimbursing VRS companies due to in many parts fraud and abuse by recommending a new per-minute rate compensation plan and reform the VRS industry in a July 28, 2011 notice to the public on the potential ruling. Some in the deaf community feared that such a newly proposed compensation rate plan will further diminish the VRS competition field (although Claude Stout, Executive Director of TDI doubt it would cause that as seen in the video). After Ryan Commerson asked Alfred Sonnenstrahl (formerly of TDI), Claude Stout (Executive Director of TDI), Shane Feldman (CEO of NAD), and Gregory Hlibok (Chief, Disability Rights Office) in his video on what they are going to do about the proposed FCC compensation rate and new rules did they all of sudden help write a letter on August 9, 2011 to the FCC which was electronically filed on August 11, 2011:

On August 9, 2011, Claude Stout, Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. ("TDI"); Shane Feldman, Chief Operating Officer, National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"); Andrew S. Phillips, Policy Attorney, NAD; Sheri A. Farinha, Vice Chair, California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. ("CCASDHH"); and the undersigned met with Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau; Gregory Hlibok, Chief, Disability Rights Office; and Diane Mason, Disability Rights Office to discuss a likely
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") about the per-minute rate of compensation mechanism for Video Relay Service ("VRS") and potential alternative compensation mechanisms.


TDI, NAD, and CCASDHH urged the Commission to undertake a Notice of Inquiry ("NO!"), rather than a NPRM, if the Commission wishes to consider possible alternatives to the per-minute compensation mechanism, including a per-user compensation mechanism. They also discussed the Commission's intent to reform VRS services.

TDI, NAD, and CCASDHH emphasized the importance of a compensation mechanism that fulfills the original Congressional intent of functional equivalency as more fully described in the Consumer Groups' TRS Policy Statement - Functional Equivalency of Telecommunications Relay Services: Meeting the Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act dated April 12,2011 (the "Policy Statement").' They expressed concerns that any reform should first take into consideration feedback from consumer representatives as well as providers to develop solutions to improve VRS. They also
expressed strong concerns regarding the idea of changing compensation from a per minute rate to a per-user rate. A per-user system would create incentives for providers to cut costs and avoid high volume customers and diminish the quality of VRS services and training, thus decreasing consumers' functionally equivalent use of the telephone system.

Further, providers may tweak the system to reduce number/length of calls from customers (i.e., longer answer times). The consumer representatives explained that the business model for the provision of services does not need to be identical to hearing consumers. In VRS, interpreter costs are generally paid by the hour and not a flat fee, whereas hearing consumers generally pay a flat fee for telephone services. The consumer representatives also raised questions about the per-user compensation approach, including what data would be used to calculate a per-user rate. They recommend that new ideas not be introduced in a NPRM, but rather urge the Commission to explore ideas with
consumers and providers through a NOI and workshops.

I can't help but wonder their action to pen a letter to the FCC was on their part and effort to save face after being confronted by Ryan Commerson and after releasing the video to the public last week for non-action.

It is great to voice concerns on how best to explore ideas with consumers and providers but the bottom line is that VRS companies are mostly hearing owned. Despite that I'm sure there are still room for competition to see more deaf-owned and operated VRS companies which will help shift more of the economic power and opportunity over to the deaf and hard of hearing communities. In fact, there are plenty of room to see more deaf-owned businesses that can cater to deaf, hard of hearing and hearing customers and clients. It all comes down to global microbranding your product and services. It's all about the hard work, the long hours, pounding the pavement and slowly build a network of clients and customers. Nobody said it'd be an easy thing.

Global microbrand.

Think about it. What does it mean to have a deaf-owned and operated business? What can a global microbranded product do for potential deaf, hard of hearing and hearing customers or clients? For a business it's not merely about having a product to sell but about believing in a product and what it can do for that potential customer. Believing in the power of transformation and what a product can do for people who can use it are powerful motivations that draw them to that product or service once they see the bigger picture of what success means. It's about making the customers and clients think that they are brilliant in choosing your product and services that keeps them coming back and recommending your product and company to other people, hence the whole global microbranding business.

But is it better to cater to a deaf-owned and operated business that know who their customers and clients really are or would it better to cater to a hearing company that pay lip service? That depends on which companies you feel the most comfortable with and the type of quality and services you get from that company. Just because it is deaf-owned doesn't mean it is the best one to go to.

Back in February 2007 at Gallaudet University's first ever blog/vlog conference I made the point to the internet audience and the people sitting in front of me that for deaf and hard of hearing people to move ahead and achieve success they would require to essentially bootstrap themselves and believe in their work and philosophy by relying more on themselves to get the job done rather than rely on hearing people for their particular products and services. Economic power is the key.

There's certainly a difference on the responsibilities of having that economic power when it comes to helping people attain greater freedom and independence versus wielding an economic power to push an ideology that reeks of office politics.  And grey areas do exist. Running a company for the sake of ideological AND political purposes will only limit your market and the customers you deal with. Keeping your nose clean of politics in a business can become a crucial business strategy in surviving and expanding your business.  The difference can be between having your company look like a feeding ground for militant zealots or not.

Economic power. Your choice, your motivation, your responsibility.

Mowl and Tropp Plead Guilty to Fraud...will others follow?

Yes, it's 4 days old but this is something I want to address here even though this whole thing started back in July 2009.

In a Department of Justice press release:

Anthony Mowl, the former assistant vice president of business development for Viable Communications Inc. (Viable), and Donald Tropp, the former human resources manager for Viable, pleaded guilty today to engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Video Relay Service (VRS) program of more than $2.5 million, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division.

Today, Mowl, 25, and Tropp, 25, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Joel A. Pisano in Trenton, N.J., to conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Mowl and Tropp were indicted on Nov. 19, 2009, along with Viable’s president, John T.C. Yeh; Viable’s vice president of corporate strategy, Joseph Yeh; and the Viable corporate entity.

In pleading guilty, Mowl and Tropp admitted that beginning in approximately fall of 2007 and continuing through approximately January 2009, they conspired with others to pay individuals to make fraudulent VRS phone calls using Viable’s VRS service. According to the pleas, John and Joseph Yeh paid Mowl and Tropp who would then pay people for using Viable’s VRS service. Mowl and Tropp kept a portion of the payments for themselves and distributed the remainder to the paid callers. Viable then caused the submission of fraudulent call minute claims to the FCC, causing the FCC to pay those claims at a rate of approximately $390 per hour for each of the VRS calls that it processed.

According to information contained in the plea documents, Mowl and Tropp admitted that their role in defrauding the FCC’s VRS program led to a total of between $2.5 million and $7 million in fraudulent billing to the program. At sentencing, both Mowl and Tropp face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, as well as mandatory restitution and forfeiture. A sentencing date has not yet been set by the court.

So, what's the deal here? This is all about corporate greed when one finds him/herself lured by the powerful dollar in using loopholes to defraud the government and other entities to cash in on even more money going into the millions of dollars. Easy money as they thought. Never before has this happened on such a large scale in the Deaf community bilking millions of dollars from the FCC's VRS program. It is an unprecedented event and a lesson for all.

Anthony Mowl, if you remember, was one of the "darlings" who spoke out during the heady days of Gallaudet Protest in 2006. He was also the Copy Editor for Gallaudet's online magazine "The Buff and Blue" whose picture of Mr. Mowl is still there. There is a video of him in YouTube signing away as recent as July 22, 2009 in trying to sell ViableVRS services literally just a few months before he got charged as seen in the November 18, 2009 court docket for fraud.

With names like Anthony Mowl, Donald Tropp and Joseph and Jon Yeh (who founded the famous Rathskeller, a favorite student hangout for many years at Gallaudet) well known in the Deaf community (especially at Gallaudet University where they all graduated beginning with John Yeh in 1971) does this fraud case hits hard the Deaf community. It especially shines a bad light on Gallaudet University as they all are alumni with Yeh at the top of the list. So, embarrassing is this that Deaf Nation, as it would seem, removed a picture of the Yehs (Jason, John, and Joseph Yeh) posing in a picture seen in one of the DN blog article but it is blank except for the captions (a picture of it can be seen in a Google cache.) This case is not just the 4 of them but are part of the 26 people involved in this fraud case. And so I ponder, what are the odds that many of the 26 involved also graduated from Gallaudet University since the VRS center is located in Rockville, Maryland, not far from Gallaudet University?

One thing for sure, this is all a big black eye on the Deaf community and Gallaudet University.