POLL Vote
11 07 2008Folks..
Please take time to VOTE. See to your right of this website and you can choose ONE that best meets your answer and VOTE.
Thank you…
Ed B
Ed’s Telecom Alert
POSTS ALERTS REGARDING TRS & ITS RELATED ISSUES
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- edsalert on Relay Texas Administrator Available AGAIN
- Gary on Relay Texas Administrator Available AGAIN
- Sandra barnes-smith on Relay Texas Administrator Available AGAIN
- CNW on Obama Considering Candidates for the FCC
- edsalert on CNN Article on Viable
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
I’m not happy with the voting options offered. Although I voted for purchasing of VP as opposed to free VPs, I really want some compromise between retail and what a regular telephone costs the hearings. One can buy a land line phone in the store for less than $20.00 and a portable phone for less than $30.00. The more expensive phones have additional features like automatic redial, memory for frequently used phone number, etc. I’d want to see a basic VP offered similar in price to basic telephone with increasing retail prices for additional features comparable in price and features as regular telephone. I value my independence and ownership of the use of the telephone. Maybe some kind of government subsidies to make costs comparable as well as support based on income may help here.
Larry,
Thanks for ur feedback. Valuable information. I agree with you. At the very least, we’ll gain some insight what folks really think ought to be.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Hi all,
Let’s see how the ”free” VPs come out in terms of quality and service (repairs and assistance), plus the wifi capacity–let’s see how it holds up esp., when mobile vps are out of range. When the product is of satisfactory performance and meets our telephone needs and wants, then perhaps we could start paying a price. I’m hesitant to pay for equipment that is not up to my liking nor up to quality when the field is still relatively new. You see, ppl are already asking about handheld VPs and why not we have that option here, no –because there isn’t enough bandwidth. That’s how I understand it.
And Ed, what will you do with the results of this survey? All eyes on you, too.
Winks*
I too am not satisfied with the selections. It would seem they should be made available for economically challenged households, as in some seniors, low income etc. The average HOH or Deaf individual who would not otherwise get state or federal assistance should plan on obtaining their own device.
SB, Eh, just like the captialsm - only the best and cheapest sell. Understandable!
What will I do with the results of the survey? The curiosity will be abated that’s what. I hope the curiosity of about 715 subscribers to this edsalert will likewise be sated as well. I believe most VRS providers read this blog/vlog, so they may get a "hint"?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Ed,
I did not vote. I did not like the selection same as some of the others who made comments here too. I do believe that when we have to purchase VP’s then states agencies that provide assistant for phones will include VP like they have included pagers.
I am also waiting to see how the VP companies meet FCC requirements. And when VP are truely and equally as phones. The day we can final have our own phone number and I can call anyone reqardless of what VP they use and I can still use any VR service I choose depending on my mood for that day will be the day I start looking at which VP I want to purchase. And my decision will be base on the quality of the equipment, features, ability to call and receive calls from folks using different equipment, ability to use any VR service, amount of time it takes to get service for repairs when it breaks down and how complicated it is to get/report problems and get service.
I like what Larry Brick said. I’ll add to his comments here. It’s so important that the deaf achieve functional equivalence with their hearing counterparts especially at work. That’s what the original intent of the ADA (Title IV) back in the 1990’s tried to convey to the public. Simply stated, the deaf should be able to use the telephone as effortlessly as everyone else. Therefore, the telephone has to be as visually functioning as possible to the deaf/HH. There cannot be a price affixed to such accessibility and freedom. Therefore, the VPs should be made available to every deaf and HH American citizen regardless of price. Exactly how this will work out will require further study.
Ed et al
I cannot directly answer the poll because I am not deaf or hearing impaired. I do however serve on the State of California’s advisory committee for the program that issues equipment free of charge to the deaf, hard of hearing, and disabled in California. For four years, now, I have been working to add videophone equipment to the list of authorized equipment distributed by the state. There is no reason that in states with equipment programs that videophones are not being distributed to eligible consumers. Through equipment distribution programs to the deaf and hard of hearing the state governments can purchase the phones at a little above wholesale prices and at least offer a selection of basic phones. If people wanted more, and could afford it, they could then purchase their own.
JoAnn and Paul,
Important points you two made.
I’ll like to share an intriguing observation.
I have partial oversee responsibility of equipment distribution program in Texas. A pattern I’ve seen time and again. The poorest of the poor have Cable TV (usually premium rates), HDTV (a few had plasma TV), pager (because their credit ratings are not good, they have to pay upfront - a few hundred dollars to start the service), and so on. Oh, don’t get me wrong, there are folks that have nothing, but they’re few. I think it is matter of priority. Video Phones with VRS seem to be very important consideration and if they cost, they are one-time charges. so it seems it is matter of priority of what is important to these poorest of the poor.
There are both sides to this explosive issue and I can easily argue for both sides.
eyes wide open and thumbs way up,
Ed B
I think it’s very parallel to the cell phone market. The cell phone company sells you a reduced price phone with the goal of selling you a service plan. Since VRS doesn’t cost and there is no requirement that a consumer use that specific provider it does throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing possibly. When and if the long distance charges return to relay (doubtful it ever will because I don’t even pay for long distance for my home phone it’s just part of the service now) then there would be a way to recoup some dollars. Personally, I think a great way is to push the distribution down to the most grassroots level possible. It is a great opportunity for state Deaf Associations to earn funds by distributing the video phones.
There could be a sliding scale cost involved. That way a consumer doesn’t have to approach a large (and getting larger by the minute, or is that every 1/10 of a minute…(harken back to text relay billing
corporation because of income level or hardship to get a free video phone. They can go to the organization they are most familiar with - their own Association. I’m sure there will be some people that would see that differently, “don’t want other people to know I need help” kind of thing. I think with time and a little effort on the part of the people distributing the equipment that worry would fade.
Regardless, there is probably a happy medium where the equipment is partially subsidized by the provider and made available free to those who really can’t afford it.
To level the playing field, video phones should be sold.
Unless the Federal Government is subsidizing the distribution of free equipments, it is unreasonable to demand for free because companies that make them need incentives to put innovative and affordable technology on the market. On the other hand, consumers would value their equipment because they invested to obtain it. The have-nots should be allowed to obtain them through VR vouchers. However, if prices go exorbitant like hearing aids and hearing aid batteries, it is not advisable to push for a retail.
Free videophones give the VRS manufacturers the right to control our choices which would mean for us to be time-inefficient and confused should we want to use other VRS providers.
Purchasing videophones would mean that the startup menu will, like TTYs, be generic and acceptable by organizations who must be neutral such as the public government agencies and various equipment distribution programs, to name a few.
I think its good idea to have several plans such as free version, basic, portable, office and top-of-the-line VP. It’s still too early to tell which one is best interest in deaf community right now.
I did not vote either because I want to support both free and retail VP options.
Hmmm…
Wow! This poll shows clearly pro and cons of both side of the issue. As of this morning July 14 - 6:15 am, the tally is 49 for FREE and 57 for RETAIL. I hope more people vote as it will give us valuable insight.
Disclaimer, of course, is who the subscribers are. Most if not nearly all are interested in TRS issues so they subscribe edsalert. What about the teeming masses of grassroots folks who do not give a damn about the underlying issues of TRS? Even so, I thought it was insightful. The comments were particularly valuable.
Daryl, your suggestion of state association/clubs distributing VP to earn points is intriguing. I will have to think about that. Regardless, it shows that there are possibilities. There are, of course, ethical considerations one needs to consider before taking on any of new ideas.
Keep comments coming; they are valuable.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
I am for BOTH free and VP purchases. As for free VPs, they should be part of Telecommunications Equipment Distribution programs for those people who cannot afford to buy them. Free VPs should be only basic. VP purchases should include ALL options to allow consumers to select and pay for them.
Folks,
I got quite a few private emails asking me why I did this poll. This issue always has been an issue for me, but I became curious when I started receiving complaints from grassroots folks about these free VPs. Not many though. To actually receive complaints because of free VPs was in itself unusual so I decided to try this poll. So far poll seems to bear that out.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Like pagers/PDAs, the consumers have choices of choosing the right device and the right provider. However, this does not apply to the VP choices lately - prefer to choose and to purchase my choice of the product that can enable me the freedom to choose any VRS provider as well as the freedom of calling any deaf VP user regardless of which model. Hey, VRS providers, please wake up and listen to us! Smile!
I voted for retail…but I honestly feel that the two approaches can coexist.
First, the big part of the reason why we have free VP in the first place is because the relay companies have incentive to give us the VP for free. The more people who have VP, the more the interpreters are utilized. The higher utilization means that they get paid for providing more service by the FCC. I see no reason why VP cannot be free under those circumstances. In another words, I believe that free VP, and all of its “rules” of usage is a symptom of the fact that the FCC is paying them by the minute for providing interpreting service.
Another symptom is…they don’t have much of an incentive to encourage or help hearing people call deaf people directly using their VP. The thing I don’t particularly like is — to combat that symptom, we are setting up laws and regulations saying that the VP companies have to allow their VP to be used by other companies. That is yet another layer or rules, making the law a bit more complicated.
Now, I don’t know a good solution to this…but what I’d like to do is maybe rethink how the VRS provider is compensated for their service. Any form of compensation will tend to change the dynamics of how the market will respond, and in some cases cause things that we don’t want. The question is are we really better off because of it?
Tim,
Understood and thanks for ur thoughts. They’re appreciated.
One comment to ur last paragraph. You’re right “..compensation tends to change the dynamics..”. The way I see it, though is that there are now 11 VRS providers and two or three more coming up. So far none of them have filed for bankruptcy. or closed the shop. This tells me VRS providers ALREADY have plenty of incentives to stay in VRS business. What we’re seeing is flurry of new video phones from VRS industry; I am pretty sure it is because of the very nice reimbursements rates. Woes or whines from VRS providers do not tell the true story; simply by looking at the business side of it tells the story - at least outlying part of it and none of them close shops. Maybe it is “not yet”. I don’t know, but not happening now.
Even tho VRS has been around a while, it is still in its infancy so we all - VRS providers, consumers, and government - are going thru growing pains. The recent Rule and Order from the FCC bears that out. Eventually, I’m sure we’ll find a happy balance down in the future- I hope “NEAR” future though.
We truly are in exciting times!
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
As of this morning July 17 at 9 am central time.
82 for RETAIL
71 for FREE.
It is obviously not a runaway race.
Poll vote will stop at the end of July.
We’ll see what kind of total it will be. Of course, this is not a true sampling of all, but it does give us a pause and wonder..
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B