The whole point of the VP is to use it for Video Relay Service, otherwise Sorenson (or any other company) wouldnt be giving out their VPs for free. If the relay service is not being used then what is FCC’s reason to continue to support relay service? Of course it’s encouraged to call people at Gallaudet through the relay. Being able to use point to point on the VP is only a bonus feature.

Secondly, are you quite sure that “most people (especially hearing folks) did not have a VP” at Gallaudet? You’d be surprised to see how many VPs are on campus. You do not work for Sorenson, so you wouldnt know that. Giving VPs to hearing people defeat the point of relay service. However, VP-100s HAVE been given out to hearing faculty and staff at Gallaudet, at their request. If you’re going to make an off-handed comment, make sure you get your information correct.

VRS companies need to be rewarded for their hardware investments because the FCC does NOT reimburse them for their costs for hardware provided to potential VRS customers. That’s too bad because that’s a big barrier to incentivizing smaller VRS players to develop something. On the other hand, with the current financial pressures on the TRS fund, it’s probably more important to ensure availability of VRS as a service above anything else at this point in time.

Now that Viable has come out with the snazzy-looking VPAD, it’ll be interesting to see if it addresses some of the concerns I’ve had with the VP-200 & Ojo.

The whole idea (eventually anyway) is to get us to functional and performance parity with hearing callers. The problem today is that none of the desired features have been consolidated to within one provider. Parity would mean being able to do the following:

* Have a one-number system (like CSDVRS does, and unlike everyone else).
* Ability to use multiple videophones in a household (currently only one VP-100/200 and only one Ojo can be hooked up to a home network due to ports allowing only one device to use them).
* Ability to leave a video message (like the Ojo allows, but unlike anyone else).
* Ease of interoperability between any videophone (that’s nobody, for sure! Sorenson does not allow other providers to use its LDAP server which allows us Deafies to call one another directly using a 10-digit phone number.)
* Ability to plug in a light alerting system into a videophone with a RJ-11 phone jack, so that we can confidently await a call. (like the Sorenson VPs, and unlike the Ojos).
* Portability. Hearies can walk around with cordless handsets. The VPAD seems to indicate a level of portability, but practicality of doing so remains to be seen. None of the other units are portable and usable at the same time. One could argue a webcam via a laptop is portable, but that’s a stretch.
* Integrated video screen. Only the Ojo and the VPAD have this.

If one company can manage to accomplish the above list in one videophone device, they will likely hit a grand slam with the Deaf community and incur many FCC fines for lengthy wait times.

I think my last cell phone I had to purchase for $300 and pay for the monthly service.