Musings on Ten-Digit Nbrs for Internet Relay
2 04 2008Folks,
After talking with several relay veterans, I thought I’ll share our intriguing discussion regarding ten-digit ph nbr that the FCC will require come Dec 2008. Also couple of comments to the recent vlogs will be included as well.
Obviously, we hope that the vendor workshop that the FCC mentioned in its Rule and Order would help resolve some of these following issues. These are "what ifs" kind of thoughts.
- If one has multiple-VP of same manufacturer in the same household, will the TN be assigned to all of the VPs? Will all of them flash at the same time when they ring?
- If one has multiple-VP from different manufacturers (i.e. MVP, OJO, VP-200) in same household, will it be possible to have same TN for all of the VPs, and all will flash at the same time when they ring?
- Will hearing person(s) with good signing skill that has a VP be able to get a TN so deaf/hoh can call them?
- Will web camera with computer be assigned TN?
- If the person has VP-200 (owned by SorensonVRS), and he/she choose, oh say, Viable, as his/her preferred VRS provider, will SorensonVRS be able to track person’s phone calls?
- If person’s preferred VRS provider is constantly busy, will other VRS providers have their own 800 number (instead of IP address) to offer? (Should be, but I ask that anyway.)
- Will Pagers/Laptop that use IP Relay get its own TN? If so, how does it work if traveling? How will pager/laptop access emergency center while traveling - will emergency dispatcher know where the person is?
- During a wide-spread emergency, like tornado hitting a city, or hurricane, or even - heaven forbid - terrorism, and calling the preferred VRS provider for emergency only produce busy time, can he/she call other VRS provider? Will data or profile be shared among VRS providers so any VRS provider can handle emergency VRS calls?
- If resident only has one VP, and it breaks down, and had to wait for new replacement for weeks, and an emergency situation comes up, who should be held liable for that if any?
Folks, if you have other issues that you feel should be considered, feel free to share.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Loading ...
Ed - These are excellent questions - hopefully they will be included in the FCC’s workshop with vendors. Meanwhile, these questions and that workshop would benefit by being considered in light of certain generally agreed-upon principles or criteria that are established first. In fact, you may find that a number of your questions, and others that may be suggested, can be answered by a look at the basic principles. Such criteria could include (but not be limited to):
1. Equal ability to perform calls from Internet-based relay user to hearing person, hearing person call to Internet-based relay user, and peer-to-peer calls.
2. Automatic, seamless engagement of the preferred mode (i.e. IP Relay, VRS, CapTel, etc.) and provider of relay service for a call from a hearing person to an Internet-based relay user. No explanation of relay or use of 711 required. Incorporate TTY numbers in the central database so that TTY users can have the same benefit of automatic engagement of TRS for incoming calls from hearing people.
3. Complete accessibility and interoperability by all methods for assessing internet-based relay services and for peer-to-peer communications, for example users of a Mac or PC with built-in webcam, to communicate with a user of a Videophone 200.
4. Full inclusion for all potential users, deaf, hearing, STS, deaf-blind, hard of hearing, Spanish-speaking, VCO, HCO, etc.
5. In regards to access to E9-1-1 services by people using Internet-based technology: functionally equivalent to that experienced by people who hear and speak in terms of response time, call handling, etc.
6. Any equipment distributed by Internet-based relay providers should be available for purchase in the general market. This requirement will enable people who otherwise can communicate with each other to do so directly and help control costs.
7. Telecommunications service that is functionally equivalent to that enjoyed by people who hear and speak. (A ringing phone is part of basic service. Also, hearing people can have different types of telephones around the house that all ring as one.) This includes, as well, functional equivalence to VoIP - peer-to-peer and to and from E9-1-1.
Those are solid questions, Ed.
I look forward to the answers.
J.J.,
Me, too!
Judy,
Hey folks, I want to give credit where due; Judy is a Relay Veteran of many years [oops, did I make mistake? ;-]. I was green behind the ears regarding relay service, and Judy was my first “mentor” who gave presentation on relay service.
On your points you made are very valid. The issue is that VRS and IP Relay are Internet-based relay service and may fall under different ruling. Should not happen, but VoIP certainly bears that out. Hope the FCC takes all these into consideration.
Thanks, Judy.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Why cant we create a Videophone that has no relationship with any vrs.
Sorenson control the videophone 200 because they built it.
Viable control their VPad because they built it.
Hovrs control their MVP because they built it.
Where is the sense of ownership choice of videophone and choice of default vrs provider of their choice.
I believe strongly that the phone number should be randomized to all vrs as who has the most availability. We never shown loyality in TRS, why should we show loyalty in VRS?
I dont want to slip back to old ATT method where we had to rent the phone from ATT in order to use their services. Sorenson are practicing that method. I bet HOVRS will do the same. As well Viable. The videophone products should be third party and keep seperated from VRS. Just put your VRS on speed dial on any videophone. Then you will do fine.
Hello Ed,
I enjoy your site very much and like that you take time to share info with us. Your ASL vlogs are always positive to watch and learn from!
I think you raised many good point in this posting. I am concerned about FCC and its decision regarding TN. I want FCC to understand that all of us deaf need to be treated like hearing people with regular telephone and TN. This decision is very imporant and will have big impact on us deaf for many years down the road.
Ed, I have a question for you. In your opinion, what is best proposal FCC should accept? Which TN proposal (ATT/HOVRS, Neustar, CSDVRS) will allow deaf with VP/Webcam/IP-Relay to function same as hearing person with regular telephone and TN?? I know you said you perfer Neustar or ATT/HOVRS proposal in earlier post. I am trying to understand what is the big difference between these two proposal?
The reason I ask you is because I am concerend that some TN proposals try to make special attention to deaf’s needs, but it will mean deaf will always need special center, special equipment, other special stuffs, and this means higher cost of service and lagging behind on technology. I think it is best to make sure which TN proposal will allow deaf to keep up with hearing people’s technology changes, and work with NANP system just like VoIP services. What do you think?
I’ve set up a website (vrsactionnow.com) where I am discussing these issues, and invite you and your readers to visit and join the discussion. I already discussed about Neustar is the best for security issues, but what about best function for deaf like hearing person like I said above?
Thank you very much for your time,
Evan
Adan,
What ure talking about is separation of telecommunications product and service. Years ago, AT&T did have monoply, and powers that be mandated separation of telecom and service.
As u can imagine, there are pro and cons to this free VP. One cannot deny that VRS “exploded” because of “free” video phones. There was - well still is - a catch to the “free” concept. Get free vp, you get to use their default VRS provider. However, my personal opinion is that now that the “phase” of freebies has made VRS what it is now, and I think we’re at the point where video phones should become retail product for deaf/hoh to own and have say which VRS provider they want to use it for.
You raised a very good point, Adan, and one that many people are starting to think about now. I got a few feedback that the people actually are starting to feel guilty cuz now they have D-Link, OJO, VP-200, and web camera and they were all free - yet they use only one of them.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Evan,
You raised several good points. What I look for is balanced concept that is a win-win solution not just for deaf/hoh, but for vendors, government, etc., and one that requires minimum of changes and be able to take advantage of existing standards. Your point to “keep up” with advancing technologies of hearing person and VoIP in cooperation with NANP is what the FCC needs to consider as well.
I’ll certainly like to check out ur website.
Now I’ve gone on the record that thus far I prefer NeuStar and HOVRS/ATT mostly because they require minimum changes and already have been “tested” whereas CSDVRS - altho on the paper looks ideal - requires most changes and untested. Security concerns are also important. It is little bit hard to challenge that for any of three proposals, however, I think I can say that with NeuStar and HOVRS/ATT, it would be impossible for nefarious hacker to attack all whereas with one database service as CSDVRS proposes, nefarious hacker can focus the attack on.
Also, it would mean massive outreach by one number database to educate all that they are the only one to go to get number, change VRS provider, make changes to the profile, and so on. Other proposals, VRS providers themselves will do the outreach to try and market their service and “win” deaf/hoh over to their services and undoubtedly they will show how to do that. Better marketing opportunities for VRS providers with Neustar and HOVRS/ATT, I think.
Can type up a book on this issue, it seems. ;-]
Thanks again for raising this issue.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Just a reminder that a conversation is between two or more people. That “interpreter” service (VRS is an interpreted telephone call) should be for both parties. Sign Language interpreters, VRS providers, when focused on the “deaf” user, leaves the conversation one sided and the conversation, however positive for the person who is Deaf, becomes cumbersome for the person who can hear.
Access to this service should be “quality” and availability both ways. Your “hearing” aunt should be able to easily make contact with you the same way you easily reach her and the interpreter working the call should be considerate of both parties. If it is a telephone interview for a job, you certainly want the experience to be a good one for both parties or your ability to win in a competitive market is limited.
Using the telephone is all about talking to anyone, anywhere, anytime, worldwide. The use of the telephone brings opportunity. It should be a good experience for all parties involved.
Debbie,
I assume you meant the ease of just dialing ten-digit phone numbers by hearing person to get hold of deaf/hoh, then yes - I agree.
I have repeatedly heard from hearing persons of all walks of life how much they loved VRS as opposed to traditional TTY relay service. A few of them did complain about how difficult it is to find right phone number to get hold of a deaf/hoh person. So hopefully this new Rule and Order will help resolve that.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
In state of SC there is a sign of blue and write written *HP, so the SC Dept. of Transportation will stop by my broken down car or whatever the problems with my car, can I dial text thru my sidekick 2 to get assistance. I had problem in getting touch with *HP. I know that the hearing person can dial *HP to get assistance if they have a flat tire or something else wrong with the car. I wonder if they know the location of my broke down car. That is something I wonder about.
Hola Senor Ed,
Muchas gracias for your excellent postings here. I wanted to share with everyone the website I made to help people know how to post to the F.C.C. about the TN issue. I think it is simple and easy to follow. Do you have feedback for me? Deadline for posting comentarios to F.C.C. is 8 April 2008 so we need to share with as many people we know. It is urgent we share with F.C.C. how we feel about this TN issue.
¡Gracias y tenga un buen día!
Carmen
www.vrstnnow.com
Carmen,
I agree. I’ve been working on a vlog that will explain how to do this. I will also explain a few FCC terms to help y’all better understand what the heck is going on ;-] Be on the lookout for this. I hope to have the vlog ready by early this afternoon.
Ed B