Wednesday, 10 December 2008

  • Congressional Report Criticizes FCC and Sorenson

    DECEPTION AND DISTRUST
    THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION UNDER CHAIRMAN KEVIN J MARTIN

    This investigation was prompted by allegations to the effect that Chairperson Kevin J Martin has abuse FCC procedures by manipulating or suppressing reports, data, and information. Allegations of a broken process at the FCC came from current and former FCC employees, telecommunications industry representatives, and even other commissioners, and were often reported in the press.

     According to Mr. Chandler, a single VRS company [Sorenson Video Relay Services] provides 82 percent of all VRS minutes. Continued Mr. Chandler:

    ‘we know that the dominant provider was overcompensated approximately 80 million in calendar 2006 and 57 million in calendar 2005 ‘

     ”Despite objections from the FCC staff, three months later Chairman Martin was preparing to circulate a new order setting compensation rates for TRS providers. In a September 4, 2007, e-mail to Chairman Martin’s senior staff, Mr. Chandler delivered what he called ‘last gasp’ on the subject in an attempt to correct the situation:

    Does the chairman recognize that these rates perpetuate the enormous (100 million a year) windfall for Sorenson, at the expense of the ratepayers [sic], Does he realize that Sorenson’s own filing shows that its actual cost of proving [sic] VRS in calendar 2006 was in the low $4.00 range, so that the present $6.64 rate was more than 50% higher than Sorenson’s actual costs?

    The FCC’s Inspector General (IG) engaged KPMG to conduct an audit for Sorenson. On April 10, 2008, KPMG reported to the FCC that Sorenson had denied the KPMG auditors access to the staff and systems necessary to conduct the audit, and refused to permit them to review the company’s unredacted financial statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006. KPMG was therefore unable to conduct the audit.

    Conclusion: We recommend that the FCC immediately initiate a full investigation and audit of Sorenson. It is simply unacceptable that a company subject to Commission regulation and which every year receives millions of dollars from a Government fund can refuse to open its books to Government-authorized auditors. The FCC’s apparent failure to insist on auditing Sorenson’s books indicates an abdication of its responsibility to administer and protect the integrity of the TRS Fund.

    In addition, we recommend that GAO investigate the entire TRS program, including the FCC’s efforts to protect the integrity of the Fund and IG’s audits

    For the full report:  http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/PDF/Newsroom/fcc%20majority%20staff%20report%20081209.pdf

    For more disucssion on this topic, check out Ed’s blog Ed’s Telecom Alert » Allegations Against FCC Chair Martin

    Commentary:  Remember how Sorenson used its consumer list to urge the Deaf Community to protest  the TRS cuts, in a blatant violation of conflicts of interest?  It turns out that the company actually received monies over 50% of its actual costs, with the company being overpaid 80 million dollars in 2006?  In other words, they lied to its Deaf consumers about its true operating costs and manipulated them into protesting against the cuts.

    Now we hear that Sorenson actually had the audacity to refuse access to the auditors its records.

    We witness its monopolistic practices, hugging 82 percent of the market share, and its former unfair practice against the interpreters by insisting that they cannot work for another VRS for a period of time after resigning from Sorenson.  Earlier this year Sorenson asked FCC for an extension for the 10 digit numbers, against the wishes of the Deaf Community.

    Now this Congressional report alleging corruption. 

    MZ

    The Copy from My regular blog:  http://blog.deafread.com/mishkazena/2008/12/10/congressional-report-criticizes-fcc-and-sorensen/

  • Choose Identity

  • Give eProps (?)

  • New! You can now edit your comments for 15 minutes after submitting.

Who recommended?