Comments on: Sorenson Opens Up to Other VRS Providers

By: Devin

Devin — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:48:29 +0000

Ryan hit the nail on the head I think. I was forced to get a dlink knowing that it was inferior to the sorenson devices. To state this a bit more clear…I BOUGHT a dlink and spent near $300 on it simply so I could bypass the need for email especially for those more personal conversations that I couldnt meet face to face for.

I would much rather than spent this $300 on a new vp200 or something - but the fact I cant even buy one really puts me in a strange position considering sorenson will not open the system up a bit more to standardize this technology (and all parts about it).

A good analogy would be a company owning all rights to domain names and unless you buy a name through them, you must only use an ip address which is near impossible to remember. Oh wait! That DID happen…and the fcc put the smack down on internic for it…

By: leroy lynch

leroy lynch — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:11:47 +0000

my vediophone vp 100 was broke color bad vedio and they said want echange to same one vp100 but they said that was out of no make one vp 100 they give other peron new customer vp 200 they cant give exchange to for who broke on vp 100 really waste on time trip when they exhacnge vp 100 later again trip for vp 200 they can afro to pay mileage and work
thanks
leroy

By: mara

mara — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:05:55 +0000

Read this.

I think this article was interest for you.

By: Kay

Kay — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:20:35 +0000

Micsha, video phones given away for free are for deaf and hard of hearing people only. Free video phones from VRS providers is a way for them to get business from deaf and hard of hearing people. Hearing people don’t really use VP for vrs so they do not get it for free. Your boyfriend will have to use a webcam or other video phone such as d-link’s i2eye to call you. Can buy it at bestbuy, circuit city, computer stores, or online.

By: micsha

micsha — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:17:10 +0000

i need to know if my boyfriend hearing soon to me hubby need to have free sorenson vrs so he can communicate with me hes in ca and me in pa

By: Glucas

Glucas — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:18:50 +0000

Great points from both Markymark and Benne, but I agree more with Beene (Does that make me Beene’s puppet? smile) Markymark you gave me a lot to think about, but I still think the interoperability ruling is much more beneficial on a larger scale and in the long run too. The free VP100 was a shrewd business move. It is without a doubt a lucrative business model. The VP100, however, cannot be exempt from federal regulation especially since revenue from its use is generated from FCC-regulated funds. T-mobile and other wireless service providers give phones away as an incentive. Nevertheless, the cell phones or 2way devices are not immune to federal regulation. If the phones were not compatible or interoperable to other networks, how long do you think that business practice would last? Life span of sperm after ejaculation, I’d say. Customers today can switch carriers and keep their phone numbers thanks to a ban on wireless handset blocking. You are right, Mark, I cannot switch over to another carrier at that very moment if my service slows down, but my complaint would be with the carrier of wireless service or telephone company not the relay provider. I may need some explanation as to why a video relay service would be the same as a telephone company or high speed internet provider or a wireless service provider? Any network problems depend on the source of the problem. If accessibility via technology is solely dependant on products that the relay providers manufacture, then the users will be subject to relay provider bias on how it should be used. I heard that a memo was sent out threatening the repossession of any VP100 if profanity or nudity was demonstrated during relay calls. How subjectively controlling is that!? I am not condoning nudity or profanity towards a video interpreter, but callers should have the freedom to express themselves anyway they want as long as it isn’t directed at the interpreter. Service transperancy is an absolute must. Nudity is another thing. I’m sure there are examples in which to argue that is would be functionally equivalent. For example hearing people can use video conferencing equipment for nudity. The only difference is that an interpreter is not in the middle of that call. (Not very fair for deaf/hoh people is it?). I understand your concerns Markymark, but we should really look at other sources for video technology and advancement instead of the providers of relay services.

By: Beene

Beene — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:41:33 +0000

One step at a time, markymark. One step at a time. Interoperability today, better and improved video conferencing equipment and devices that meet our needs tomorrow. Enventually there will be vouchers which will assist users in obtaining videophones of a better caliber because inovation will not stop. I think the interoperablity mandate sends out a very good message. Is it really the responsibility of the relay provider to develop devices, constantly improve them and distribute the devices to users in order to compete on the technology side? (computers, wireless devices etc etc for IP relays, TTYs for traditional text relay, and now video phones, webcams or whatever for VRS)
In your agruement it seems that you want that to be the case. Do you feel the same about IP relay and Text Relay? Is it their responsiblity to develop, improve and distribute the computers, TTY s or whatever it takes to access their services? I believe that traditonally relay services’ main concerns is quality service and compatibility with whatever device the customer uses to access their relay service. Now it seems that they are also required to come up with the devices.
Sorenson is giving them away, (they are a beauty, D-link is a creation of theirs too… Unless you get it for free from another provider, you have to pay for the i2eye VP and nothing can be modified)
This giving away business disturbs me. I am for helping low income folks, etc… But their “give them away” marketing approach doesn’t sit well with me. It was an excellent business strategy from a business perspective. The videophone truly changed quality of accessibilty. But, I think they established a scary trend and it obviously has created some confusion.
It has created pressure on the other providers to come up with “external” or “Extended” technology that may not be financially viable.
Sorry for Snarvrs, they went head to head with Goliath in competing on the technology side by using something different.
Strictly on the interoperability in terms of point to point calls; you and I will not have any trouble or have to worry about dynamic IPs and whatever other obstacles we face when using one type of video conferencing device with another type. (we both own d-links) I believe most people own VP100s/200s (and those vps have contractual conditions of usage)
Common directory is on the drawing board, it can only getb better from here.
Interoperability has gicen VP100/200 ownders a little room to breathe and hopefully caller migration may boost the other providers’ economical status and they may begin to invest on product development. Although historically, it has never been part of the overhead for IP/text relay providers, I don’t see why it should be required of any relay provider now. If required or expected, then the FCC should support subsidizing it. If you do not see the scope (big,big picture) and do not see how not being relentless in our civil right to accessibility is necessary, there is nothing I or anyone could say to convince you of it. The problem here is that we are tying the device(s) and video relay service too closely. It limits your view when you look at the problem that closely. Once again, I thank the leaders of our “world” for what they have done. I am confident our feedback and the efforts by our leaders to voice our discontents regarding accessibility will be heard and we will not be limited to obsolete technology.

By: markymark

markymark — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 08:52:31 +0000

A Glucas puppet’s response???? LOL!

;)

Seriously though Beene, excellent points in both posts, but I feel you misread my points (or more likely I misposted them). Far from being a Sorenson puppet(I use a Dlink), I am more of a technology puppet, and my intent was to point out why the interoperability ruling missed them mark (no pun intended).

I believe the ruling will promote competition at the SERVICE level. But the FCC didn’t go far enough in my opinion, and the ruling came across merely as a scripted rebuke to a couple of providers. Nothing in the ruling promotes standards for the technology, but threatens punishment for failure to be interoperable. Wonderful! As long as VRS providers hitch their wagons to the aging technology we have today, they can still get reimbursed. If they try to deviate from the current standard, they are out of compliance, and won’t be re-imbursed. This seems like stifling competition at the technology level(not ‘lame rhetoric’)

Take SnapVRS for example. They aligned with a totally different videophone device in the OJO, and were actually trying to break away from the i2eye/VP100 mold. Because the OJO device is SIP only, only works with other OJO devices, and can only use SnapVRS, it appears they are in violation of the ruling. If true, their whole investment and business model will have to be scrapped. Even if those setbacks are ‘T-A-X D-E-D-U-C-T-I-B-L-E’, that kind of hit sends a bad message to any other providers trying to bring new/different video technology into the VRS arena. And what are Snap’s options if they have to change devices? Dlink i2eye, or logitech cams, just like every other provider. This also seems like stifled technology.

Now look at the remaining VRS industry. All the people in my contact list have a Dlink, a Sorenson, or both. Since the ruling, every one of my VP contacts plans to disconnect or sell their Dlink, since they are no longer needed. The FCC ruling made the Dlink videophone obsolete, and stifled what little technology competition there was.

The Strauss reference is perfect here, as this is a new model and will be another struggle. In this case the fundamentals of the Telecom Act need to be ported to include the video technology, and the FCC will need to require compliance there as it did with phone and wireless equipment. Simply whipping the VRS providers won’t elicit change in the from the manufacturers.

By: Beene

Beene — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:48:39 +0000

markymark you said “The bottom line is that the FCC can dictate the service from the VRS providers, but cannot control the manufacturers of the devices that are used. If it’s not financially viable to participate in a common directory, these manufacturers won’t waste their time.”
A big HA-HA-HA to that statement, thank goodness you don’t make the decisions!
If FCC were not allowed to dictate or have some control over device development, phones would not be hearing aid compatible, close captioning would have to be purchased separately as it once was, that is just a couple of many, many examples how accessibility laws enforced modifications manufacturers had do to their “devices” to honor our accessibility rights.
Laws put pressure on manufacturing companies and their executives to make business decisions designed with accessibility in mind and not solely on profit. We have to continue to apply pressure on companies or it will stifle OUR climb towards functional equivalency. Universal Design born from Section 255, if Soreson and any other manufacturer for that matter keeps accessibility in mind during the design phase, then it wouldn’t be so costly or they wouldn’t have to “suffer” when laws come out.
You say interoperbility is not functional equivalency? “I hope this unbundling decision will be the first of many steps to reach the goal of providing functionally equivalent telecommunications service to 100% of the deaf community….” A direct quote from Ron Burdett, Sorenson executive. So what are you arguing Markymark? The VRS provider and manufacturer of the device agrees it is functionally equivalent. GASP! are they just saying that for image preservation sake!?

As for common directory..do hearing or people without disabilities have it? why can’t we? Thank you U.S.A’s Contitution and the ADA and biggest thanks to those who voice our needs: NAD, TDI, AFB, APT, SHHH, AAPD, ALDA and others I know I failed to mention. And Karen Peltz Strauss. She wrote a book “A New Civil Right….” Curious to read it.

By: Beene

Beene — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:00:10 +0000

(MARKYMARK both your responses)

A Sorenson puppet’s response???? LOL. Markymark, you said interoperability would stifle technological innovations that improves the technology part of accessibility.
True, this is a capitalist country driven by profit. But it is also a “mixed economy” which means that some business decisions are overridden by the government thanks to socialist influence. Also true, is that laws looking out for the little guys may deter companies from investing on anything that doesn’t bring them big money, but there is also no shortage of inovation. Techonology here today maybe obsolete tomorrow. Manufacturers rarely have accessibility for peole with disabilities in mind that is just how is has been with or without an interoperability law. Technology improvement is almost guaranteed thanks to a competitive market in technology enhancements and capitalism, but access for individuals with disabilities requires laws to guarantee it, otherwise we wouldn’t need acts such as the Communications Act of 1934 and the ADA ACT of 1996 to protect our rights as differently abled folks. Interoperability is alive and thriving in all of the “hearing” or “non-disabled” products, why shouldn’t the same go for us? Interoperability is not just about access to all VRS providers it is about access in general. I am pleased that our best interests are represented by the good people of the NAD,SHHH, AFB, TDI, AADP, etc etc along with Ms. Peltz Strauss. By applying pressure on Congress and the FCC, evolving technology has had accessibility in mind.(Grant it, not by choice but by enforcement) Traditionally, people with disabilities have very little leverage in terms of economic power and that is why accessibility has been threatened so many times over the years, but as a whole, lack of accessibility can have more damaging affects on the economy than if manufacturers were to “risk” their profits in exchange for accessibility. Sorenson and OJO will not “suffer” to use your term… They are inanimate concepts… people with disabilities on the other hand have “sufered” a great many things….And by the way, NECA may not reimburse for videophone technology, I assume you mean the engineering and development part of it… that is another matter we need to address with the FCC, but as for “suffering” the “punishment” the FCC has handed down through interoperability, there is a work around profit loss from one area of business through an incentive called “T-A-X D-E-D-U-C-T-I-B-L-E” in other areas of business.
Spare us the lame rhetoric about stifling innovation…