Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Video relay service


Video Relay Service (VRS) is a form of that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use to communicate with voice users through video equipment and a qualified interpreter who relays signed messages verbally and spoken words via .
VRS functions by connecting users via videophones, computers, or mobile apps to a provider's call center, where communications assistants interpret in real time to bridge the gap between and spoken English, enabling calls for , , or purposes. The service is available 24 hours a day, free to eligible subscribers with certified who register with providers, and is mandated under to ensure parity for disabled individuals.
Introduced in the United States following expansions of relay services in the early 2000s, VRS has markedly improved access to telephony for ASL users, reducing communication barriers in employment, healthcare, and daily interactions. However, the program's rapid growth has led to substantial funding demands on the Interstate TRS Fund—exceeding $1 billion annually in recent years—spurring controversies over compensation rates, provider efficiencies, and instances of misuse or that have prompted regulatory reforms to curb costs while maintaining .

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concept and Purpose

Video Relay Service (VRS) is a form of (TRS) designed to enable individuals with hearing or speech disabilities who use (ASL) to communicate with voice users. It operates through video equipment, connecting the ASL user to a communications assistant (CA), typically a qualified interpreter, who relays the conversation by voicing the signed messages to the hearing party and signing the voiced responses back to the ASL user. The primary purpose of VRS is to provide equitable access to communication for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired individuals who rely on , addressing barriers posed by traditional voice-only . Mandated under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and implemented by the (FCC), VRS ensures functional equivalence in , allowing users to conduct calls for personal, business, or emergency purposes as effectively as hearing individuals. Funded by the Interstate TRS Fund and offered at no cost to eligible subscribers—who must demonstrate a and ASL proficiency—VRS promotes independence and inclusion by leveraging internet-protocol video technology, distinguishing it from text-based relay alternatives.

Target Users and Eligibility Criteria

Video relay service (VRS) targets individuals with hearing or speech disabilities who use , such as (ASL), to communicate. These users, including those who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deafblind, employ video-enabled devices like smartphones, tablets, or videophones to connect with a remote communications assistant (CA) acting as a interpreter, enabling conversations with hearing parties. In the United States, eligibility for VRS is available to any person with a hearing or speech , as defined under the Relay Services (TRS) program established by the (FCC) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 225. The service imposes no income or financial eligibility requirements and is provided at no cost to qualified users through FCC-certified providers compensated via the Interstate TRS Fund. Users must register with a VRS provider to receive a ten-digit telephone number, which facilitates both outbound calls and inbound access from hearing callers. While VRS is primarily designed for sign language users, it accommodates those with speech disabilities who prefer visual communication over text-based alternatives like IP Relay. Registration typically involves self-attestation of disability status, though providers may require verification in cases of suspected fraud; no formal medical certification is mandated by the FCC for standard access. The service is restricted to U.S. residents, with providers ensuring compliance through user agreements.

Historical Development

Precursors in Telecommunications Relay Services

The development of telecommunications relay services originated with the invention of the modem in 1964 by Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf scientist, which enabled the creation of the first teletypewriter (TTY), also known as a (TDD). This device allowed individuals who were deaf or hard-of-hearing to communicate over standard telephone lines by converting typed text into audible tones and vice versa, addressing the limitations of voice-only without requiring specialized infrastructure. Early relay services emerged in the 1970s as informal, often volunteer-operated systems to bridge TTY users with hearing individuals lacking compatible devices. The first formal relay service was established in 1974 by Converse Communications in Connecticut, where operators manually relayed messages by reading typed input aloud and typing responses from voice callers. These services expanded sporadically across states, relying on local utilities or nonprofit initiatives, but faced challenges including inconsistent availability, high costs, and operator fatigue from real-time voice-to-text transcription. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 mandated nationwide access to functionally equivalent telephone services, prompting the (FCC) to implement standardized (TRS) programs by 1991. Traditional TRS, the predominant form prior to video-based systems, utilized TTY relay operators who facilitated calls by serving as intermediaries: voicing the TTY user's typed messages to hearing parties and typing the hearing parties' spoken words for relay back to the TTY user. Accessible via the universal 711 dialing code, these services handled millions of minutes annually but were limited by the slower pace of typing compared to spoken language, averaging 40-60 words per minute, and the need for users to possess bulky TTY hardware. Funding came from interstate carrier contributions to the TRS Fund, ensuring cost neutrality for end users.

Early 21st-Century Trials and Rollouts

On March 6, 2000, the (FCC) issued an order authorizing Video Relay Service (VRS) as a form of (TRS), enabling deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals using (ASL) to communicate via video with voice telephone users through remote interpreters. This authorization built on prior state-level trials, particularly in , where Sprint conducted initial VRS tests in the mid-1990s under the direction of relay administrator Ed Bosson, demonstrating feasibility for broader implementation. Following the FCC's approval, VRS providers began rolling out services nationally in the early , with high-quality implementations emerging around 2001-2003 as and videophone technology improved. Sprint, leveraging its experience, became one of the first to offer 24/7 VRS, including features like Spanish-language support and voice carryover. In 2003, Sorenson Communications launched Sorenson VRS, utilizing proprietary video compression and the VP-100 videophone, the first device specifically designed for VRS calls, which facilitated compact, user-friendly access. By 2002, the FCC had established regulatory oversight for VRS operations, ensuring compliance with TRS standards for speed, privacy, and interpreter qualifications. Rollouts accelerated, with VRS call centers opening across the by 2005, significantly expanding availability and usage among ASL users. These developments marked a shift from experimental pilots to functional, nationwide service, though early adoption was limited by the need for compatible videophones and reliable connections.

Expansion and Standardization Post-2000

In March 2000, the (FCC) expanded (TRS) provisions to authorize Video Relay Service (VRS), permitting communications assistants to relay calls using via video connections between deaf or hard-of-hearing users and standard voice telephone users. This authorization, detailed in rule amendments published June 21, 2000, made VRS eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund, spurring provider entry and initial deployments as broadband access and affordable video equipment proliferated. Usage surged post-authorization; monthly VRS minutes reached approximately 1.8 million by April 2005, a tenfold rise from earlier figures, driven by technological feasibility and federal mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Standardization efforts intensified to address quality inconsistencies and risks amid growth. In February 2005, the FCC clarified TRS rules prohibiting deceptive marketing and improper call handling by VRS providers, emphasizing that services must facilitate access rather than in-person interpreting. By 2010, new mandates required VRS providers to maintain 24/7 operations and meet speed-of-answer benchmarks—such as answering 80% of calls within specified times—to qualify for fund reimbursements, aiming to enhance reliability for users. Further refinements included 2013 measures restructuring provider practices for efficiency, such as limiting on-site call centers and improving interpreter routing. Interoperability standards, effective December 2017, compelled providers to ensure cross-platform compatibility for video calls, reducing connection failures and supporting portable numbering. These steps, enforced via FCC oversight and codified in 47 CFR Part 64, balanced expansion with fiscal controls, as VRS minutes contributed to overall TRS growth from 53 million annually in 2002–2003 to over 249 million by the early .

Technical Operation

Standard Call Procedure

In a standard outbound Video Relay Service (VRS) call, the user with hearing or speech disabilities initiates contact by dialing the VRS provider's designated video access number via a videophone, , or equipped with a camera. This connects the user via a video link to an available communications assistant (CA), who is a qualified (ASL) interpreter located at a call center or, under FCC-approved conditions, remotely. The user signs the destination telephone number of the hearing party, along with any call-specific instructions such as preferred or context, which the CA acknowledges visually before proceeding. The CA then places a voice to the provided number using a standard or VoIP connection, introduces the call as relayed through VRS if needed, and voices the user's signed message verbatim to the hearing party. The simultaneously interprets the hearing party's spoken response into ASL, signing it directly to the user over the video feed without typing or text intermediaries, maintaining natural conversational flow and handling turn-taking to minimize delays. This bidirectional relay—sign to voice and voice to sign—continues for the duration of the call, with the ensuring , accuracy, and with FCC standards, such as answering at least 80% of calls within 120 seconds. For inbound calls, a hearing party dials the VRS user's assigned ten-digit number, which routes through the provider's network to an available CA. The CA alerts the user via video, who accepts the incoming video connection; the CA then voices the hearing party's introduction and relays in the same sign-to-voice and voice-to-sign manner as outbound calls. Call termination occurs when either party signals the end, after which the CA confirms disconnection on both ends. Variations like point-to-point video calls between two VRS users bypass the CA after initial connection, but standard procedures apply to mixed hearing-deaf interactions.

Required Technology and Infrastructure

Video relay service (VRS) relies on user-end devices capable of video transmission, including dedicated videophones, computers equipped with webcams, or smartphones and tablets running compatible applications. These devices must support (ASL) visibility through cameras with sufficient resolution and frame rates, typically integrated with software adhering to IP-based video protocols. Broadband is essential, with minimum speeds of approximately 1 Mbps and for standard-definition video to maintain clarity and low latency critical for accurate interpretation; higher speeds, such as 2-4 Mbps, enable high-definition feeds that reduce visual distortions. The (FCC) requires VRS to operate over () networks, facilitating direct video connections between users and relay centers without traditional circuit-switched . Provider infrastructure encompasses centralized or distributed video call centers staffed by interpreters using analogous video endpoints, connected via robust IP backbones for call routing and handover. Systems incorporate or standards for signaling, alongside video codecs like H.264 for compression, ensuring across devices and networks. User registration databases, mandated by the FCC, assign ten-digit numbers to VRS subscribers, enabling standard dialing interfaces while routing calls to appropriate interpreters. Reliability features include redundant servers, quality-of-service mechanisms to prioritize video traffic, and with FCC performance metrics, such as answering 80% of calls within 120 seconds. These elements collectively support 24/7 operation, with ongoing FCC rule updates emphasizing flexible remote interpreting to optimize infrastructure efficiency.

Interpreter Roles, Training, and Working Conditions

Video relay service (VRS) interpreters, also known as communications assistants (CAs), serve as intermediaries who facilitate real-time communication between users of (ASL) and standard voice telephone users. Their primary role involves interpreting spoken English into ASL for the deaf or hard-of-hearing caller and conversely rendering ASL into spoken English for the hearing party, ensuring accurate and impartial transmission of the conversation via video connection. Interpreters must greet participants, manage call connections, and adhere to ethical standards such as and neutrality throughout the interaction. Qualifications for VRS interpreters emphasize effective, accurate, and impartial interpreting skills, but the (FCC) does not mandate national certification. Providers are responsible for verifying interpreter competency, often requiring fluency in ASL and English, along with assessments of receptive and expressive skills. For remote home-based work, FCC rules stipulate that interpreters possess at least three years of professional ASL interpreting experience and demonstrate the necessary skills and knowledge for effective service delivery. While formal training programs exist for ASL interpreters, including those focused on VRS-specific scenarios, participation is not federally required, leading to variability in provider standards. Working conditions for VRS interpreters frequently involve remote setups with extended , contributing to physical , mental , and elevated compared to community interpreting roles. Interpreters report challenges such as from handling diverse and sometimes abusive caller interactions, isolation due to solitary , and high-pressure demands for rapid, error-free interpretation, which can increase error rates with prolonged sessions. emerges as a primary factor impairing performance, prompting recommendations for structured breaks and workload limits, though enforcement varies by provider. Compensation and career progression concerns persist, with reports of inadequate pay relative to demands and limited advancement opportunities exacerbating turnover.

Regulatory and Funding Framework

United States Regulations and FCC Oversight

The (FCC) regulates Video Relay Service (VRS) under its authority to implement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which mandates functionally equivalent relay services (TRS) for persons with hearing or speech disabilities. The FCC adopted initial TRS rules on July 26, 1991, requiring common carriers to provide relay services nationwide, with funding through a dedicated Interstate TRS Fund compensated by contributions from providers. VRS, enabling real-time video communication in via certified interpreters, was formally recognized as a TRS variant on March 6, 2000, following petitions from advocacy groups and providers demonstrating technological feasibility. Initially, the FCC granted waivers from certain TRS minimum standards, such as speed-of-answer requirements, until January 1, 2006, to allow infrastructure development. VRS providers must obtain FCC to operate and receive TRS Fund compensation, involving submission of applications detailing with operational, , and standards under 47 CFR Part 64, Subpart F. requires demonstrating interpreter qualifications, equipment interoperability (mandated since May 3, 2006), and support for (E911) services (required since June 24, 2008). Key service rules include answering at least 80% of calls within 120 seconds on a monthly basis, providing 24/7 availability (effective January 1, 2006), handling calls in queue order without preferential treatment, and ensuring user , with limited exceptions for speech-to-speech services. Providers must assign users a ten-digit telephone number for outbound calls, including 911 access, and support multiple default providers per videophone while prohibiting incentives that encourage excessive usage. The FCC exercises ongoing oversight through enforcement of these rules, including complaint investigations via its Disability Rights Office, audits of provider performance, and adjustments to TRS Fund compensation rates to promote efficiency and deter abuse. In , the FCC strengthened VRS standards by formalizing speed-of-answer metrics and 24/7 mandates, addressing prior compliance gaps. More recently, on March 21, 2024, the FCC adopted rule modifications to enhance VRS efficacy, such as expanding at-home interpreter minutes to 80% of total usage and streamlining for contract interpreters, with compliance effective April 22, 2024. These reforms aim to balance with fiscal , as the FCC monitors usage patterns and has historically reduced compensation for non-compliant or inefficient providers. Violations can result in revocation, fund repayment, or fines, ensuring adherence to ADA-equivalence goals.

Funding Mechanisms, Costs, and Fiscal Sustainability

The Video Relay Service (VRS) in the United States is primarily funded through the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund, a administered by the (FCC) and financed by mandatory contributions from all providers of interstate services. These contributions are assessed as a small of providers' interstate end-user revenues, with the annual contribution factor set by the FCC based on projected fund needs; for the 2024-2025 fund year, the total net funding requirement was $1,490,582,564, decreasing slightly to $1,479,568,862 for 2025-2026. VRS providers receive compensation directly from the fund for eligible service minutes, reimbursed at tiered per-minute rates established annually by the FCC to approximate reasonable costs, such as $8.33 per minute for small providers (handling one million or fewer monthly minutes) in the 2025-2026 fund year. VRS has historically driven a substantial share of TRS Fund expenditures, with costs escalating from minimal levels in the early 2000s to hundreds of millions annually by the late 2000s, fueled by per-minute compensation structures that incentivized providers to maximize call volume without initial caps on usage. For instance, major VRS providers reported combined revenues exceeding $600 million from the fund in a recent year, reflecting the service's high operational expenses including interpreter wages, infrastructure, and call handling. These costs are passed to consumers indirectly via surcharges on bills, averaging less than one percent of monthly bills but cumulative across the sector. Fiscal sustainability has been challenged by widespread and , particularly between 2006 and 2010, when unscrupulous providers and individuals exploited the system through fabricated calls, unauthorized interpreter practices, and false billing claims, inflating expenditures and prompting indictments of over two dozen participants in nationwide schemes. This surge threatened the program's viability, as unchecked growth in VRS minutes outpaced legitimate demand and strained the fund's resources. The FCC responded with reforms mandating user registration, interpreter , call , and compensation audits, which curbed fraudulent payouts and stabilized costs, though VRS remains the TRS Fund's largest expense category. Ongoing oversight includes periodic rate adjustments toward actual costs and fraud investigations, such as a requiring a provider to repay $1.4 million for improper fund use, yet high per-minute rates and potential residual continue to raise questions about long-term affordability amid static contribution bases.

International Regulatory Approaches

In , the Canadian Radio-television and Commission (CRTC) designates video relay service (VRS) as a , mandating its provision for users of (ASL), Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ), and other recognized sign languages to communicate with voice telephone users. The CRTC's Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2025-54, issued on February 21, 2025, establishes updated requirements for VRS, including minimum standards for interpreter qualifications, service availability, and administration by the Canadian Administrator of VRS (CAV), Inc., to ensure reliable sign-language interpretation. These rules emphasize 24/7 access where feasible, quality benchmarks for video connections, and funding through contributions from telecommunications providers, distinct from the U.S. model's interstate fund. In the , regulates emergency video relay services under telecommunications rules to enable (BSL) users to contact emergency services via video interpreters, with implementation required from June 17, 2022. This service must be zero-rated, allowing use over mobile data without charge, and supports ad-hoc access without mandatory registration, prioritizing rapid connection to / emergency lines. 's framework focuses on emergency access rather than general , with providers required to meet technical standards for video quality and interpreter response times, though non-emergency VRS remains largely unregulated and provider-driven. Australia's National Relay Service (NRS), governed by the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Act 2012, incorporates video relay as a component for deaf users employing , available from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays and limited weekend hours, reflecting resource constraints in a less densely populated market. The service mandates clear visibility of users' hands and faces for interpretation accuracy and is funded through obligations on carriers, without the 24/7 mandate seen in . Recent enhancements, announced August 30, 2024, aim to expand app-based access but maintain national oversight by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. Across the , no unified regulation exists for VRS, with implementation varying by under the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) of 2018, which imposes accessibility obligations on electronic communications providers without specifying VRS formats. The (ETSI) provides voluntary guidelines in ES 202 975 (version 2.1.1, September 2015), outlining technical requirements for video relay, including speech-to-sign conversion and , but enforcement relies on national authorities. Diverse national approaches, as noted in (ITU) analyses, result from varying legal frameworks, with some countries like offering subsidized VRS through public broadcasters, while others limit it to text-based relays due to fiscal and infrastructural differences. Emergency access via VRS is uneven, often addressed through broader relay standards in ETSI EN , highlighting a patchwork of compliance without the comprehensive mandates of North American models.

Deployment and Usage Patterns

Implementation in the United States

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented Video Relay Service (VRS) under its Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act mandates for equal telephone access. Rules enabling VRS were adopted in the FCC's 2000 Report and Order on Internet-based TRS, allowing certification of providers to offer video-mediated sign language relay starting in 2001. Initial deployment focused on areas with sufficient broadband infrastructure, with services expanding nationally as high-speed internet and affordable videophones proliferated in the mid-2000s. VRS operates over networks, requiring users to have a videophone, webcam-enabled computer, or connected to the , along with a 10-digit for outbound calls. Providers must ensure 24/7 availability, answering at least 80% of calls within 120 seconds, and support emergency routing. Nationwide coverage is achieved through centralized call centers employing certified interpreters, eliminating the need for local facilities. Major certified providers include Sorenson Communications, which commands over 70% ; Purple Communications (including ZVRS); and smaller entities like Convo Communications, Communications, and ZP Better Together. These providers compete for Interstate TRS Fund compensation based on minutes of use, with total industry revenue exceeding $600 million annually as of recent fund years. Usage has grown steadily, driven by improved technology and awareness among the estimated 500,000 to 1 million ASL users in the U.S., though exact minutes of use vary by provider and are not publicly aggregated beyond fund reports. Services integrate with platforms like for professional calls, enhancing workplace and access. Implementation challenges included early infrastructure limitations, addressed through FCC mandates for VoIP providers to support TRS by 2007.

Global Deployment and Country-Specific Examples

Video relay services (VRS) and analogous video interpreting relay systems have been deployed in multiple developed countries outside the , primarily to fulfill legal obligations for telecommunications accessibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals under disability rights frameworks. These services typically connect sign language users via video to interpreters who relay to hearing telephone users, with implementations varying by funding models—often government subsidies, telecom levies, or business subscriptions—and operational scopes, such as 24/7 availability or business prioritization. Adoption began in the late in , with pioneering public regulation in 1997, and has since expanded to and parts of , though coverage remains uneven globally, concentrated in nations with robust regulatory enforcement like those in the . Usage data is limited, but services in these regions handle thousands of calls annually, supported by platforms like nWise MMX for video connectivity.
CountryProvider(s)Funding ModelKey Features
Bildtelefoni.netState-funded via Swedish Post and Authority (); free to usersOperational since 1997; 24/7 availability; supports (SSL) to spoken Swedish relay; unlimited calls with emergency priority; accessible via web/mobile apps.
(National Relay Service)Telecom levies on companies with >AUD $25 million; no Video relay trial since 2008, weekdays 7 AM–6 PM; Auslan-English relay; registration required since 2021; app-based access; planned simpler platform in 2024.
United KingdomSignVideo, SignLiveBusiness subscriptions; some government support (e.g., Access to Work grants)BSL-English relay; varying hours (e.g., 24/7 for some providers); business-focused with individual access via affiliates; integrates with services like NHS 111.
(NZ Relay)Government allocation (NZD $4.7 million/year); free for local callsPermanent since 2010; NZSL-English relay; hours vary (e.g., 9 AM–5 PM weekdays); app launched 2021; pre-registration for chargeable calls.
In , deployments emphasize hybrid VRS/video remote interpreting (VRI). offers VRS through providers like TeSS and , publicly financed with user contributions (e.g., €0.14/min for private calls), limited to DGS during extended hours (8 AM–11 PM). France's services via Elioz and Tadeo are 24/7 for LSF, funded by business subscriptions allowing free individual use through affiliates. Switzerland's Procom provides multilingual VRS (// signs) under obligations, with capped fees (e.g., CHF 55/month). These models often prioritize professional contexts, reflecting regulatory focuses on rather than free access.

Controversies and Challenges

Fraud, Abuse, and Program Exploitation

In the late , the Video Relay Service (VRS) program faced substantial through schemes where providers and associates billed the (FCC) for fictitious or minimally substantive calls. In November 2009, a federal indicted 26 individuals across multiple states for to commit wire , alleging they defrauded the program of approximately $50 million by submitting false claims for VRS minutes that involved paid participants generating short, scripted, or non-communicative interactions lacking genuine relay needs. These schemes exploited the program's per-minute compensation model, with conspirators recruiting callers via bonuses for volume, routing calls through complicit providers, and fabricating call data to inflate reimbursements from the Interstate Fund. Several defendants pleaded guilty, including executives from providers like Viable Inc., who admitted paying intermediaries to orchestrate thousands of illegitimate hours billed to the . For instance, in January , two former Viable executives confessed to roles in generating fraudulent calls by compensating callers for pre-arranged, low-effort sessions. Similarly, in January 2011, Marc Velasquez pleaded guilty to for facilitating fake calls, highlighting how communications assistants were incentivized with per-minute kickbacks, leading to abuse of resources intended for deaf and hard-of-hearing users. Such exploitation contributed to rapid cost escalations in the program, with VRS reimbursements surging from under $50 million annually in the early to over $1 billion by , partly due to fraudulent inflation. The FCC responded with regulatory reforms to curb these vulnerabilities. In May 2011, it adopted rules prohibiting practices that facilitated , such as on-site call centers designed for high-volume illegitimate calls and incentives tying interpreter pay to minutes handled. Additional measures in 2013 introduced stricter user registration and processes to verify eligibility and prevent duplicate or ineligible claims, addressing waste from over-registration. By 2024, further rule updates restricted provider practices prone to abuse, like unauthorized calling routing, though isolated settlements for improper billing continued, such as a provider's $1.4 million in resolution of overbilling allegations. These efforts reduced reported large-scale incidents post-2011, but the program's compensation structure remains susceptible to exploitation without ongoing oversight.

Service Quality and Reliability Issues

Users of Video Relay Service (VRS) have reported frequent technical disruptions, including poor video quality, intermittent , and issues that hinder communication. A 2022 study on video remote interpreting (VRI) in healthcare settings identified technical problems as the most common barrier to accessible communication, encompassing unreliable and equipment failures that degrade visibility. Similarly, VRS interpreters have noted logistical challenges such as inadequate lighting, , and substandard video resolution, which exacerbate interpretation errors during calls. Interpreter-related reliability concerns stem from high stress levels and , contributing to elevated turnover rates and inconsistent . Research indicates that VRS interpreters experience significant from factors like lack of over call visioning and repetitive high-volume workloads, leading to physical strain and mental fatigue that impair performance. In 2025, unions representing interpreters at major providers Sorenson and Better Together alleged poor working conditions, including excessive call volumes without adequate breaks, resulting in a perceived decline in overall VRS quality as experienced interpreters exit the field. The (FCC) mandates that VRS providers achieve an 80% call answer rate within specified times to mitigate such reliability gaps, yet complaints persist regarding non-compliance during peak hours. Regulatory responses have aimed to address these issues, with the FCC issuing orders in and to enhance VRS efficacy, including stricter metrics for providers and incentives for technological upgrades. Despite these measures, deaf advocates and interpreters continue to highlight systemic underinvestment in and , arguing that profit-driven models prioritize cost-cutting over sustained reliability. Empirical data from FCC oversight reveals ongoing variability in metrics across providers, with some failing to consistently meet benchmarks for accurate and timely .

Economic and Efficiency Criticisms

Critics of Video Relay Service (VRS) have highlighted its substantial contribution to escalating costs within the federal (TRS) Fund, which reimburses providers through surcharges imposed on all subscribers' bills, effectively distributing the financial burden across non-users of the service. Total TRS Fund expenditures surged from approximately $104 million in the 2002–2003 rate year to $818 million in the 2013–2014 rate year, with VRS accounting for a disproportionate share of the growth due to rapid increases in call minutes and higher per-minute compensation rates compared to other relay services. By 2025, the TRS Fund reached $1.48 billion, underscoring ongoing fiscal pressures amid demands for program expansion and quality improvements. Efficiency concerns center on the compensation structure, which analysts argue fails to promote cost containment or innovation, as providers receive tiered per-minute reimbursements that may exceed actual marginal costs, potentially enabling windfall profits rather than incentivizing streamlined operations. has adjusted formulas, such as collapsing upper reimbursement tiers and adopting five-year rate stability in , to align payments more closely with reported costs, yet critics contend these measures do not fully address overcompensation or adapt to technological alternatives like direct video calling apps that could reduce reliance on intermediaries. Proposed reforms, including reverse auctions for service provision, aim to foster competition and lower rates by allowing providers to bid downward on costs, but implementation has lagged, perpetuating inefficiencies in resource allocation. Operational inefficiencies further compound economic critiques, as high rates of interpreter stress and —linked to VRS-specific demands like prolonged and lack of control over call vision—lead to elevated turnover and recurrent training expenses for providers. acquisitions of major VRS firms have drawn scrutiny for prioritizing short-term profit extraction, such as through cost-cutting on interpreter support, over sustainable service delivery, which may inflate long-term fund demands without commensurate improvements in or . Despite FCC efforts to enhance provider , such as increasing the allowable share of calls handled by remote interpreters to 80% in , fundamental questions remain about the program's adaptability to declining costs in video technology and its overall value relative to direct, unsubsidized communication tools.

Effectiveness and Broader Impact

Empirical Evidence on Communication Efficacy

A cross-sectional study of 555 deaf adults in the United States, conducted from 2016 to 2018, assessed satisfaction with video remote interpreting (VRI), including VRS applications, in healthcare contexts and found that 41% rated the service quality as satisfactory, while 59% deemed it unsatisfactory. Interference with the disclosure of health information during VRI sessions was strongly linked to dissatisfaction, tripling the odds (adjusted : 2.90, 95% CI: 1.97-4.27, P<.001). Factors such as male and absence of a regular healthcare provider correlated with higher satisfaction rates (P<.05), underscoring the role of contextual and demographic variables in perceived . A scoping of VRI literature, encompassing VRS for telecommunication , concluded that these services enable deaf users to surmount traditional barriers more effectively than lipreading or written notes, potentially yielding better communication outcomes and reduced healthcare costs through fewer unnecessary visits. One cited analysis reported an 81% lower odds of dissatisfaction with accessible communication via VRI compared to non-interpreted methods. Nonetheless, technical failures, screen size limitations, and interpreter proficiency consistently undermined efficacy, with the same dissatisfaction rate of 59% observed in prior surveys of deaf patients. Quantitative measures of VRS-specific communication accuracy, such as interpretation error rates or fidelity, remain sparse in peer-reviewed , though regulatory frameworks prioritize fidelity as a for functional equivalence to standard . Anecdotal and qualitative data from VRS task analyses indicate that mediation via video supports more spontaneous and nuanced exchanges than text-based alternatives like TTY relay, reducing and enhancing speed for sign-fluent users. However, interpreter has been associated with elevated error rates in prolonged sessions, highlighting human factors as a on sustained . Empirical gaps persist, particularly in direct comparisons of VRS to legacy relay services, with studies confined largely to high-income settings and healthcare rather than general . High-fidelity video transmission and skilled, certified interpreters emerge as prerequisites for optimizing outcomes, as suboptimal setups exacerbate miscommunication risks.

Societal Benefits and User Outcomes

Video relay service (VRS) enables deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to communicate via with hearing parties through remote interpreters, fostering greater independence in daily interactions. Users can initiate calls from videophones, smartphones, or computers, eliminating reliance on in-person interpreters for routine . This accessibility supports participation in , educational, and social activities, aligning with mandates under with Disabilities Act for equal communication access. In emergency situations, VRS provides direct video connections to services, allowing sign language users to convey urgent information visually to interpreters who relay it to hearing dispatchers, potentially expediting response times compared to text-based alternatives. Reports highlight VRS's in bridging gaps for deaf callers, where traditional voice-only systems fail, thus enhancing public safety outcomes for this population. For healthcare, video relay and related video remote interpreting (VRI) technologies help overcome interpretation barriers, with literature indicating potential improvements in communication between deaf patients and providers. Empirical reviews suggest VRI facilitates clearer exchanges in non-critical settings, though users often prefer in-person interpreting for high-stakes medical discussions to ensure accuracy. Societally, VRS promotes inclusion by reducing exclusion from infrastructure, enabling deaf individuals to contribute economically through sustained and reduced dependency on assistance. While direct longitudinal studies on gains remain limited, the service's design supports , as evidenced by its use in professional environments to handle calls with hearing colleagues or clients. funding sustains these benefits, offsetting costs that might otherwise burden users or employers. User outcomes include heightened autonomy and , as VRS transforms personal devices into functional communication tools without scheduling constraints. However, effectiveness varies by call complexity and interpreter quality, with some noting challenges in conveying nuanced information remotely. Overall, VRS represents a causal advancement in equitable , grounded in video technology's ability to preserve sign language's visual-grammatical structure over text relays.

Long-Term Sustainability and Reform Efforts

The Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Fund, which finances Video Relay Service (VRS) through mandatory contributions from telecommunications carriers, has encountered long-term sustainability pressures primarily from escalating costs driven by historical , abuse, and inefficient provider practices. Between 2000 and 2010, VRS expenditures surged from negligible levels to over $600 million annually, comprising a significant portion of the TRS Fund's budget and prompting surcharges on consumer phone bills that reached up to 1.5% by the mid-2010s. These dynamics threatened the fund's viability, as unchecked minute growth—exacerbated by providers incentivizing excessive usage—outpaced revenue contributions and risked broader telecommunications cost burdens. To address these issues, the (FCC) has pursued multifaceted reforms aimed at cost containment, fraud prevention, and enhanced efficiency. A pivotal Order restructured the VRS program by mandating among providers, improving call portability, and introducing tiered compensation rates to discourage frivolous calls while fostering ; these measures reduced average per-minute costs from approximately $1.50 in 2016 to under $1.00 by 2020. Subsequent actions, including 2023 adjustments to the VRS compensation formula, allocated payments across three tiers of minutes (e.g., lower rates for high-volume tiers exceeding 65 minutes per user session) to align reimbursements more closely with actual service delivery costs and deter abuse. Recent reforms emphasize operational improvements and data-driven oversight. In March 2024, the FCC adopted rules enhancing VRS quality by expanding the allowance for communications assistants (CAs) working from home to 80% of monthly minutes (up from 50%), effective April 22, 2024, to lower overhead while maintaining service standards through performance metrics like call answer times under 10 seconds for 85% of calls. The 2025 TRS Fund budget of $1.48 billion reflects targeted VRS allocations, informed by advisory council recommendations for analytics to monitor cost recovery and provider accountability, aiming to stabilize contributions without surcharge hikes. Ongoing FCC scrutiny, including audits and penalties for non-compliance, underscores efforts to ensure program longevity amid projections of sustained demand from an aging population and technological adoption.

References

  1. [1]
    Video Relay Service (VRS) - Federal Communications Commission
    Video Relay Service (VRS) allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities who use American Sign Language to use video equipment to communicate with voice ...
  2. [2]
    Video Relay Services - Federal Communications Commission
    Jul 18, 2022 · Video Relay Service is a form of Telecommunications Relay Service that enables persons with hearing disabilities who use American Sign Language to communicate ...
  3. [3]
    Video Relay Service: Program Funding and Reform - Congress.gov
    Jul 29, 2022 · VRS allows persons with hearing disabilities, using American Sign Language (ASL), to communicate with voice telephone users through video equipment rather than ...
  4. [4]
    Relay Services - NAD - National Association of the Deaf
    Video Relay Service (VRS), an Internet-based system for people with video conferencing equipment or videophones who communicate in American Sign Language ...
  5. [5]
    Video Relay Service - APCO International
    Video Relay Service (VRS) enables a person who is deaf, deaf-blind, hard of hearing or has speech disabilities to use sign language or speech reading to ...
  6. [6]
    FCC Adopts New Compensation Plan for Video Relay Service
    Sep 28, 2023 · For VRS providers handling 1 million or fewer VRS minutes per month, the compensation formula is $7.77 per minute for all minutes. For the ...Missing: funding | Show results with:funding
  7. [7]
    Lost in Interpretation: Private Equity's Capture of a Vital Sign ...
    Aug 7, 2024 · The Video Relay Service (VRS) is an important type of TRS that enables persons with hearing disabilities who use American Sign Language (ASL) to ...
  8. [8]
    Video Relay Services - NAD - National Association of the Deaf
    VRS enables a deaf or hard of hearing person to make and receive telephone calls through a communications assistant (CA) who is a qualified American Sign ...
  9. [9]
    Video Relay Service | Sorenson VRS
    May 5, 2023 · VRS is a no-cost, subscriber-based service for Deaf people with a qualifying hearing loss who use ASL and have videophones, smart phones, tablets, or computers.
  10. [10]
    Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS)
    Jul 2, 2025 · Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) allow persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, or have speech disabilities to communicate by telephone.Video Relay Service (VRS) · TTY Relay Service · Captioned Telephone ServiceMissing: eligibility criteria
  11. [11]
    [PDF] FAQ: Ten-Digit Numbering Requirements for VRS and IP Relay
    FAQ: Ten-Digit Numbering Requirements for VRS and IP Relay. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted rules that require Video Relay Service (VRS) and.Missing: eligibility criteria
  12. [12]
    Who Can Use Video Relay Service (VRS)? - Convo Communications
    Jul 28, 2022 · To use VRS, you must be deaf, deafblind, hard-of-hearing, or speech-disabled, at least 13 (or with parental permission under 13), a US resident ...
  13. [13]
    TTY and TTY Relay Services - NAD - National Association of the Deaf
    TTY relay services, the original and now “traditional” relay service, can be reached by anyone by dialing 711 from a telephone or TTY.
  14. [14]
    [PDF] THE EVOLUTION OF THE ATEL PROGRAM FOR ... - RI.gov
    In 1974, The first relay service was established by Converse Communications of. Connecticut. In 1975, Clarity built its first amplified telephone handset in ...
  15. [15]
    History of Relay Service in America
    The TTY's first public display was in 1964, and its use was soon adopted throughout the country. and soon spread throughout the country. Initially, calls could ...
  16. [16]
    Telecommunications Relay Service - TRS
    Aug 16, 2022 · Telecommunications Relay Service allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities to place and receive telephone calls.
  17. [17]
    Celebrating a 30-Year Evolution for Accessible Communications
    Jul 27, 2020 · March 6, 2000: The Commission expands TRS to include Video Relay Service (VRS), allowing communications assistants to facilitate calls in ...Missing: precursors | Show results with:precursors<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Ed Bosson - Wikipedia
    Sprint was the first service provider to conduct the Texas video relay tests. Bosson would later receive national awards from Smithsonian Computerworld, the ...
  19. [19]
    HIST 330 Deafness and Technology: Videophone Relay Services
    A video relay service (VRS) is a video telecommunication service that allows deaf, hard-of-hearing, and speech-impaired individuals to communicate over video ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] VRS PROVIDER RELEASE 4.9.15
    Sep 4, 2015 · The introduction of high-quality VRS in the early 2000s has been transformational in the lives of people who are deaf and has helped level ...
  21. [21]
    Sorenson is Desperate! - AEfron Arts and Culture
    Nov 25, 2011 · Sprint Relay / CSDVRS was the FIRST company to provide 24 hours / 7 days VRS service, Spanish language VRS, voice carry over (VCO), and ...
  22. [22]
    HIST 330 Deafness and Technology: Videophones and Webcams
    Video relay services centers opened up across the U.S. in 2005. Companies such as Purple, ZVRS,Convo, and Sorenson provided these services. In 2020, Sorenson ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Videotelephony and Video Relay Service Policies Affecting US ... - ITU
    Congress in 1990 – has required TRS throughout the United States,18 and since March of. 2000, the FCC has authorized the provision of VRS as one form of TRS.
  24. [24]
    Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech ... - Federal Register
    Jun 21, 2000 · This document amends Commission rules governing the delivery of telecommunications relay services to expand the kinds of relay services available to consumers.
  25. [25]
    FCC Adopts New Rules to Improve Video Relay Service
    Jul 27, 2010 · The new rules establish, for the first time, mandatory speed of answer requirements for VRS, require VRS to be offered 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24/7),
  26. [26]
    Clarification of Telecommunications Relay Service Marketing and ...
    Feb 17, 2005 · This document clarifies that certain telecommunications relay services (TRS) practices violate the TRS rules, and that video relay services ...Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  27. [27]
    Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
    Jul 5, 2013 · Under Title IV of the ADA, the Commission must ensure that telecommunications relay services (TRS) are available, to the extent possible and in ...
  28. [28]
    47 CFR 64.621 -- Interoperability and portability. - eCFR
    (b) Technical standards for interoperability and portability. (1) Beginning no later than December 20, 2017, VRS providers shall ensure that their provision of ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] GAO-15-409, TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE: FCC ...
    Apr 29, 2015 · According to FCC, some providers, and one consumer group we spoke with, the development of TRS technologies that use the Internet—such as VRS, ...
  30. [30]
    Video Relay Service Call Handling - Federal Register
    May 8, 2020 · VRS providers are required to effectively train and supervise at-home CAs and are responsible for their CAs' compliance with the minimum TRS ...
  31. [31]
    Minimum Standards for Video Remote Interpreting Services in ...
    To support high definition video transmissions on both ends, every endpoint must support at least 1024k video calling and be uninterrupted and continuous, with ...
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Report on the Technical Feasibility of Implementing a Video Relay ...
    This report presents some of the technical considerations for video relay service (VRS) and covers topics such as call routing, technical standards, and offers ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-116
    Dec 20, 2023 · FCC 23-116 modifies rules for Video Relay Services (VRS) to increase flexibility for hiring sign-language interpreters and ensure easy calls  ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    47 CFR § 64.604 - Mandatory minimum standards. - Law.Cornell.Edu
    VRS calls that originate from an international IP address will not be compensated, with the exception of calls made by a U.S. resident who has pre-registered ...
  35. [35]
    The Wonderfully Unique World of a VRS Interpreter
    Jul 1, 2024 · In their operator role, interpreters greet consumers, connect calls, and introduce themselves to all parties involved. Transitions from ...
  36. [36]
    VRS Sign Language Interpreters: An Appropriate Legal Tool?
    Jun 3, 2014 · The FCC does not mandate that VRS interpreters are certified. Although some VRS providers do intake assessments, the criteria and qualifications ...
  37. [37]
    FCC Certification Process for Video Relay Service Providers Needs ...
    Currently, there are no federal certification requirements for becoming a sign language interpreter. Instead, providers are given the task of determining who is ...
  38. [38]
    47 CFR Part 64 Subpart F -- Telecommunications Relay Services ...
    The purpose of this database is to ensure accurate registration and verification of VRS users and improve the efficiency of the TRS program. (54) Unauthorized ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] January 9, 2020 - Federal Communications Commission
    Jan 9, 2020 · 35 We expect that a CA with three years of professional ASL interpreting experience will have become skilled in providing interpretive services.
  40. [40]
    Interpreting Sign Language - NAD - National Association of the Deaf
    Prospective interpreters will be tested on their expressive and receptive signing, sign-to-voice, and voice-to-sign skills. You are encouraged to take as many ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    [PDF] Stress and Burnout in Video Relay Service (VRS) Interpreting
    Moser-Mercer (2005) found the primary factor affecting an interpreter's quality of work was fatigue, as indicated by an increased error rate. All of the ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Case Conferencing Decreases Occupational Stress for VRS ...
    Many sign language interpreters working within Video Relay Services (VRS) experience more occupational stress than interpreters working in community settings ( ...
  43. [43]
    Video Relay Service Interpreters' Experiences with Caller Behavior
    Aug 26, 2025 · Results: Incidents of VRS interpreters mediating calls regarding sexual activity, drug deals, and prostitution were reported with notable ...
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Persistent Emotional Extremes and Video Relay Service Interpreters
    Intrapersonal stress from working conditions was identified as a factor in an interpreter's decision to reduce one's amount of work in VRS. However ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Video Relay Services Interpreting Task Analysis Report
    The primary goal of video relay is to accurately convey callers' meaning and intent in ASL and in English, resulting in successful interpretation of the calls. ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  46. [46]
    Occupational Safety, Health, and Well-Being Concerns and ...
    Oct 23, 2024 · Interpreters reported occupational safety, health, and well-being concerns and shared their solutions for management.
  47. [47]
    Video Relay Service Improvements - Federal Register
    Mar 21, 2024 · Compliance Date: The compliance date for amended § 64.604(d)(7)(i) is October 17, 2024. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Mendelsohn, ...Background · CAs Working at Home · Contracting for CAs
  48. [48]
    FCC Announces Effective Date of Video Relay Service Improvements
    On March 21, 2024, the FCC released a Public Notice announcing the effective and compliance dates of these rules. The rules are effective April 22, 2024. The ...Missing: authorization | Show results with:authorization
  49. [49]
    FCC Approves New TRS Contribution Factors - The CommLaw Group
    Jul 1, 2024 · The FCC approved new Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) fund contribution fee factors for the July 2024-June 2025 funding period.
  50. [50]
    FCC Releases 2025-26 TRS Fund Contribution Factors Order
    Aug 26, 2025 · On July 7, 2025, the FCC released an Order establishing the total size of the Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund for the period from ...<|separator|>
  51. [51]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission DA 25-571 1
    Jul 1, 2025 · Per-minute compensation for Fund Year 2025-26 for IP. Relay shall be $2.1970, and, for Video Relay Service (VRS), $8.33 for small providers, who ...
  52. [52]
    Video Relay Service Compensation Formula - Federal Register
    Oct 19, 2023 · The Commission allows TRS Fund recovery of VRS providers' reasonable costs directly related to the provision of software that can be downloaded ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Video Relay Service: Program Funding and Reform - Congress.gov
    Jul 29, 2022 · On June 30, 2022, the FCC adopted per-minute VRS compensation rates for the 2022-2023 Fund. Year, effective from July 1, 2022, through June ...
  54. [54]
    Breaking down changes to video relay service industry | MultiLingual
    Oct 19, 2023 · The purpose of VRS is to allow Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) to place phone calls to hearing people who speak English or ...
  55. [55]
    TRS Fund Contributions - Federal Register
    Nov 25, 2022 · By contrast, approximately 76% of the costs of relay services provided through state TRS programs are funded from intrastate sources, and, since ...
  56. [56]
    Twenty-six Charged in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the FCC's ...
    Nov 19, 2009 · The indictments allege that 26 individuals engaged in a scheme to defraud the FCC by submitting false and fraudulent claims for VRS calls.Missing: fiscal sustainability concerns
  57. [57]
    Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program
    May 2, 2011 · SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts rules to address fraud, waste, and abuse in the Video Relay Service (VRS) industry.Missing: fiscal | Show results with:fiscal
  58. [58]
    Video Relay Service - CRTC
    Feb 21, 2025 · Following a review of Video Relay Service in Canada, an updated policy has been issued. Video Relay Service Policy: sign-language interpretation.
  59. [59]
    Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2025-54
    Feb 21, 2025 · Video relay service (VRS) is a basic telecommunications service that enables Sign language users and voice telephone users to communicate with each other.
  60. [60]
    Statement: Emergency video relay - Ofcom
    This statement sets out our decision to require the provision of an emergency video relay service, implemented through the UK telecoms regulations.
  61. [61]
    Emergency video relay - Ofcom
    Mar 31, 2023 · However, emergency video relay must be zero-rated under Ofcom rules, so users should be able to use their own devices using mobile data free of ...
  62. [62]
    Video Relay | Access Hub - National Relay Service
    You can make Video Relay calls between 7am to 6pm (Australian Eastern Standard Time) Monday to Friday and 8am to 12pm Saturday. Video Relay calls are not ...Missing: regulations | Show results with:regulations
  63. [63]
    Terms & conditions - National Relay Service | Access Hub
    3.2 When using the Video Relay service you must use Auslan to communicate and ensure that both your hands and face are clearly visible to the NRS interpreter ...Missing: regulations | Show results with:regulations
  64. [64]
    New features on the way for the National Relay Service
    Aug 30, 2024 · The National Relay Service (NRS) is an essential phone service that supports people in every corner of the country who are d/Deaf, hard of hearing and/or have ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] EUD report on the European Electronic Communications Code
    In 2018, the European Commission adopted the European Electronic Communications Code. (EECC), establishing legal obligations for electronic communications ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] ETSI ES 202 975 V2.1.1 (2015-09)
    A video relay service shall meet the requirements of clauses 6 to 9. 5.4. Captioned telephony services. 5.4.1. Speech to text conversion. A captioned telephony ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] RELAY COMMUNICATION ASSISTANTS AND VIDEO ... - ITU
    The few relay services in Europe are based on the very diverse national legal rules and regulations. Therefore this presentation is divided in a section on the ...<|separator|>
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Accessible Emergency Communication via Relay Services
    To understand the security impact between calls from relay services to Emergency Services, we need to consider the diverse methods of communication involved.
  69. [69]
    Video Relay Service (VRS) Providers | Federal Communications ...
    Apr 2, 2025 · VRS providers include Bond Communications, Convo Communications, Sorenson Communications, Tive, and ZP Better Together. Some have conditional ...Missing: major | Show results with:major
  70. [70]
    Sorenson Video Relay Service | Sorenson VRS for the Deaf
    Sorenson VRS provides expert interpreting in English or Spanish on Deaf-centric products, with a large interpreter pool and no cost to users.Sorenson ntouch apps · Video Relay Care Package · Porting · VRS for Zoom<|control11|><|separator|>
  71. [71]
    Video Relay Service Research – International Comparison - CRTC
    Sep 16, 2021 · This report provides some background information on the Canadian VRS including a summary of key points from the recent public opinion research.Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
  72. [72]
    [PDF] VRS Models in Other Countries - Deaf Wireless Canada Committee
    Jan 3, 2018 · This research summary represents the findings of the fourth of twelve phases of a study commissioned by Bell Canada (Bell).
  73. [73]
    Short information in English - Bildtelefoni.net
    Bildtelefoni.net is a national Video Relay Service that also offers limited Video Remote Interpreting. The service is for persons in Sweden with deafblindness.
  74. [74]
    Video Relay Service App for BSL Users And Interpreters | SignVideo ...
    SignVideo allows BSL and hearing users connect through VRS and VRI services. Our mission is to connect the hearing and deaf communities in a business or ...Download · SignVideo Life · Solutions · About
  75. [75]
    Twenty-Six People Charged in $50 Million FCC Scam - CNBC
    Nov 19, 2009 · The indictments allege that twenty-six individuals engaged in a scheme to defraud the FCC by submitting false and fraudulent claims for VRS ...
  76. [76]
    Three Former Owners and Employees of Two Video Relay Service ...
    Mar 9, 2010 · Each defendant admitted to generating or processing thousands of illegitimate VRS hours that were billed to the FCC. According to information ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    FBI — Two Former Executives of Indicted Video Relay Services ...
    Jan 13, 2010 · 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 ...
  78. [78]
    Individual Pleads Guilty to Defrauding FCC Video Relay Service ...
    Jan 6, 2011 · WASHINGTON – Marc Velasquez pleaded guilty today to engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Video ...Missing: sustainability concerns
  79. [79]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-54 Before the ...
    Apr 6, 2011 · Disabilities, Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video Relay Service, Further Notice of Proposed. Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 5478 ...
  80. [80]
    Video Relay Interpretation and Overcoming Barriers in Health Care ...
    One of the most common barriers to accessible communication via VRI were technical problems, as well as quality of sign language interpreting services.
  81. [81]
    American Sign Language interpreters union alleges poor working ...
    Sorenson and ZP Better Together — said they have suffered from poor working conditions, low ...
  82. [82]
    Interpreters at Sorenson and ZP Better Together continue to press ...
    Jun 3, 2025 · One interpreter stated that “The quality of VRS is on a speedy decline because interpreters are not being taken care of. Call volumes are so ...
  83. [83]
    How Can the FCC Improve Provision of Telecommunications ...
    Sep 28, 2020 · IP CTS is now the most widely used of the FCC's relay services, having grown from 2.4 million minutes in 2009 to 511.6 million minutes in 2019 ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  84. [84]
    Telecommunications Relay Service: FCC Should Strengthen Its ...
    Apr 29, 2015 · These increases stem from the popularity of new forms of TRS that use the Internet—such as Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  85. [85]
    The FCC's Billion Dollar ASL Impact - Partners Interpreting
    Jul 8, 2025 · The FCC's 2025 TRS funding order sets a $1.48B budget. Learn how adjustments to Video Relay Service (VRS) funding will directly impact ASL usersMissing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  86. [86]
    Video Remote Interpreting Technology in Health Care: Cross ...
    Mar 11, 2019 · This study aimed to investigate the national trends of deaf patients' satisfaction with the quality of video remote interpreting (VRI) in health settings.
  87. [87]
    Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program
    Apr 12, 2017 · In this document, the Commission seeks comment on establishing performance goals and service quality metrics to evaluate the efficacy of the ...Missing: infrastructure | Show results with:infrastructure
  88. [88]
    The Role of Computers in Improving Access to Emergency Services ...
    Dec 5, 2023 · For the deaf community, Video Relay Services (VRS) have changed the game in emergency communication. Emergency service operators can ...
  89. [89]
    Video Relay Interpretation and Overcoming Barriers in Health Care ...
    Jun 9, 2022 · Furthering our understanding of the use of VRI technology is pertinent and relevant. The available literature shows that VRI may enable deaf ...
  90. [90]
    Healthcare providers' and deaf patients' interpreting preferences for ...
    Both healthcare providers and DHH patients preferred in-person interpreting for critical care to obtain effective communication, translation accuracy, and ...
  91. [91]
    VRS | Sorenson Communications
    And traditional videophones aren't. ntouch solves that by turning your smartphone or laptop into a videophone, so you can make video relay calls anytime, ...
  92. [92]
    FCC Adopts a comprehensive Reform Order to Improve Video Relay ...
    Jan 9, 2017 · The Order takes a number of actions to restructure the VRS program, including steps that will ensure the interoperability and portability of ...Missing: long- | Show results with:long-