Benefits
The main motivation for implementing VRI other than the lack of interpreters is the cost benefits. Face-to-face interpreters can be very costly due to travel time and costs that are accrued. VRI interpreters, on the other hand, are only charged by the time they are used.
Significan‟t in the U.K. explained that payment for the VRI equipment comes from the Greater London Authority (greater London city government). All other costs must be covered through Significan‟t. Operating expenses are paid for through contracts developed with third party professionals, such as hospitals, lawyers, and other VRI
service providers (VRI Telephone Interview, 2 April 2008). A SignOn representative from the United States (2008) stated that because with VRI, the user only pays by the time that is used, it is more cost efficient than face-to-face interpreting, where there is usually a base time that must be paid for. The comparison table below shows the differences in billing structure of face-to-face and VRI interpreting of different VRI service providers in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Table 12: VRI Cost Comparisons
Significan’t (U.K.) Sorenson (U.S.) SignOn (U.S.) Face-to-face
interpreting costs
charged by 3 hour intervals travel time not
included does not offer face-to- face interpreting charged hourly excluding travel time VRI interpreting costs charged by 20 minute intervals if time spent is less than 1.5 hours, then VRI is cheaper must be a minimum of 10 minutes each additional minute charged after that if time spent is less than 30-45 minutes, then VRI is cheaper charged by minute intervals Problems
Regardless of the cost benefits of VRI, sometimes the decreased costs result in overuse of the service when face-to-face interpreting is actually the better option. Money should not always be the driving factor for choosing an interpreter; however in some cases that is what happens.
An online blogger in the U.S. remarked, “It‟s the hospital‟s responsibility to match the needs of the patient.” He observed a situation in which his friend was not given an option as to what kind of interpreter he preferred, and because it was more cost effective for the hospital to hire a VRI interpreter, that is who he had to use. This
situation is an example of how dependence on VRI technology, while providing a less expensive alternative to on-site interpreters, can have an unintended negative impact and cause unnecessary stress for deaf individuals.
In the United States VRI must be paid for by the deaf or hearing person using the service, while VRS is free for use by deaf and hearing individuals through funding from the Federal Communications Commission. The Director of the Technology Assessment Program at Gallaudet University, (2008) explained that Video Relay Services are free to users and are paid for by “fees charged to interstate carriers, wireless carriers and now Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) carriers.” VRI, however, is similar to other
interpreting jobs since it is paid for by the organization or person responsible, such as a hospital providing VRI equipment for a deaf patient to use. VRI is not regulated by the FCC because it is considered a commercial service that replaces face-to-face interpreting. VRS, on the other hand, is considered an alternative to using the telephone for a deaf person, which is how the FCC warrants funding for it.
The FCC has come across some problems regarding regulation of the payment system for VRS. The service provider has to submit minutes to the FCC to get paid for the relay calls that have been made. The FCC must rely on the service provider to honestly account for the minutes submitted because the FCC has no way of monitoring the number of calls themselves.
Another problem that the FCC is currently dealing with is making sure people are not using VRS when they should be using VRI. Because the services are very similar and because VRS is free, whereas VRI must be paid for by the individual using the service, many people have tried using VRS as VRI.
Considerations
Third party organizations which support VRI and are in cooperation with SignOn VRI in the United States, pay for all the VRI equipment themselves (12 April 2008). The U.S. VRI service provider, Sorenson, charges no-shows and cancellations the full time scheduled if not given 24 hours notice, which is also what usually happens with cancellation of a face-to-face interpreter (email interview, 2 April 2008).
A quick reference of the problems and benefits mentioned by the various VRI stakeholders regarding the cost of VRI is listed in Table 13.
Table 13: Cost
Cost Benefits
Service Providers:
VRI less expensive than face-to-face (U.S. & U.K.)
Pay by the time used instead of hourly rates, depending on the provider
Or pay by smaller time intervals (20mins), depending on provider
Problems
Deaf Consumers:
There is a charge to the customer involved for VRI
Cost shouldn't mean the needs of the deaf person are ignored Third Party Hearing Professionals:
Paid for like normal interpreting jobs, by person or organization responsible
Government Agency Representatives:
VRI not paid for by FCC (U.S.)
Considerations
Deaf Consumer:
There is no charge to the client for VRS Service Providers:
Equipment paid for by the government; other expenses paid for through the service provider (U.K.)
Government Agency Representatives: