Should Features of VP Be Passed on to New Default VRS Provider?
28 10 2008Folks,
We have a tough issue! I am very curious what you all think about that.
Remember the Number Order from the FCC indicate that we have to choose a VRS provider as a default VRS provider so we can get the 10-digit phone number (henceforth called "TN")? Okay, now the order seems to say that we can later choose different VRS provider and port the same TN to the new "deafault" VRS provider. What this means when we change to a different VRS provider, we keep the same TN. Seems easy enough.
Now does that mean the features of that VP VRS users enjoy; will these features stay the same when transferring to a new VRS provider with the same video phone?
No says a couple of the VRS providers. Not possible due to proprietary and/or technical issues. One added that it does not make business sense and removes the incentive for VRS providers who have VP products. The following links indicate that if features are transferred to another VRS provider, that means they are giving up investments already made into developing the VP. In other words, one link indicate that is "stealing" from original VRS Provider’s idea without having to do the work of developing the features of VP.
The following links are Sorenson’s Ex-Parte and SnapVRS’s Presentation. These links will basically show that they worked hard to develop their VP, and the features of the VP, spending thousands or millions of dollars creating ideal VP, and all that…then to let other VRS provider have the features of VP? Let other VRS provider use other company’s VP and its features, and make money out of it without doing the R&D themselves?
SorensonVRS said will provide "vanilla" type with no features and will not open its "source" as they contain proprietary information. SnapVRS is saying not possible to do that at all due to technical difficulties.
The following link were from comments were from CSDVRS, GoAmerica, Viable, and SnapVRS.
CSDVRS GoAmerica Viable SnapVRS Comments
Above link is basically saying that it is very difficult to follow the instructions of the FCC where it says when a deaf/hoh changes from original VRS provider that distributes VP to a new default VRS provider; the link sez that new fault VRS provider does not have the capacity to collect routing info of the deaf/hoh user. Instead, suggest that original VRS provider continue to provide routing info (in other words, doing the work for the new default VRS provider).
The following link is from CSDVRS that challenges SorensonVRS’s comments and CSDVRS maintains the only solution is to require device distributor (VRS provider who distributes VP) maintain updating the routing information.
The following is from GoAmerica. GoAmerica also challenges SorensonVRS’s comments and maintains that since SorensonVRS controls 90% of the video phones in USA so the FCC should allow device distributor (i.e. SorensonVRS, or OJO, or Viable or CSDVRS or SnapVRS) must update the routing information to the central database and not the new default VRS provider.
What all this could mean is that the features of VP from the original VRS providers (i.e. VP-200 belongs to SorensonVRS, OJO belongs to SnapVRS, MVP belongs to GoAmerica, and so on) will not be "transferred" to new default VRS provider.
Boy, this is a sticky one for sure; one of those damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I understand SorensonVRS’s and SnapVRS’s viewpoints. Does that each VRS providers need to develop their own VP, and if we change default VRS provider to another one, does that mean we give up the original VP and take on the new VP? If so, half of VRS providers will be out of business, unless, of course, other non-device VRS providers contracts with VRS providers with VP.
I don’t know what the answer is…really don’t. If the FCC forces the transfer of all features, then VRS providers who researched and developed their VP may lose the incentive to do further R&D and may give up VRS altogether?
Perhaps follow the standard as developed by VoIP? With each VoIP provider, you will get unique equipment solely for the VoIP provider that provided that. Change to a different VoIP provider, you give up the original one, and use the new VoIP equipment with the new VoIP provider. We want functional equivalence; this is functional equivalence. Remember VoIP users still keep their phone numbers, but just change to new VoIP provider and the equipment. Should VRS Industry follow that standard? Let me know what you all think?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Let the customer pick the 10 digital numbers from any provider and that will became default. FCC pays for it. The companies just make $$ based on mins. So with FCC pays for it, all vrs should remove the default and allow customer to pick which they want it to be a default based on 10 digital numbers that they get from.
i think we should have the rights as hearing folks do and pick what vrs we want to use and have it there to use all the time and there is no need for the hearing getting their way every time there is something add new for us the deaf folks they need to understand that tdd is not that good on services and it takes the relay line to turn on the the line for 30 mins on tdd but with the vrs we get it on right way and its ready to works why change any thing now since the vrc s is working great
*Blinks* If I were to transfer my local ten digit number from one provider to another provider, of course I would not expect the features to stay the same! I accept the fact that each VRS provider has their own unique features, and it would be unreasonable to expect the same kind of features I once enjoyed from one provider while switching to a new “default” provider!
Ed,
You bring up the point of “functional equivalence” and I have a problem with that. If we keep pushing for that, sooner or later, we, the deaf consumers, will have to pay for the service, including having to puchase the devices such as VP.
In the ideal world which is already happening, you have many choices of cell phones, including blackberries. That’s the hardware area. And, you have many choices as to your provider, the companies that provides the air time. Not all providers provides the same services. You have a 10-digit number and that is transportable from one provider to the next. However, while you can switch providers with the same 10-digit number, you would end up with new features.
If I have VP-200 from Sorenson and I want to use CSDVRS as my provider, I should be allowed to do that. CSDVRS gave me the 10-digit number of my choice. Two years later, I want to switch provider to SNAPVRS, using the same VP-200 and the same 10-digit number that was assigned to me.
In the area of cell phones, you can not use the same device (because of the internal SIM card), you need to get a new one from the new provider. There are few cases where you can get a cell phone from anyone and it would work with any provides.
In the old days, AT&T had a monopoly. Took many years to change how to do business to allow competition.
The other day someone send me a website that sells lots of videophones. Can a hearing person join in the system after selecting a VRS of his choice? I am referring to a hearing person who knows sign language.
You mentioned VoIP. If I have Comcast and use their cable line, must I use Comcast’s phone? Am I limited to that? I know I am not with the cable modem. I simply use the line from Comcast, using my own cable modem. There are few features on my cable modem that Comcast’s modem does not.
Can we compare that to VP?
This problem was created by the (Republican) FCC who opened up VRS to competition. That is competition for each user for each call!
In the “good old days”, state governments operated competitive bids for relay services and set standards for all calls for all users in their state. Users often got their TTY through a state controlled contract. The relay provider and the equipment provider provided the same service to every user for the entire year or three years or five years of the contracts.
I – sadly – agree that VRS providers who invest money in developing features and equipment should not be forced to hand that technology off for FREE to other VRS providers.
IF we want to stay with open competition, then we must accept that the features and the equipment belongs to the provider. When we decide to change providers, we must give back our equipment and buy our own equipment or accept the equipment that our new provider is offering. Just like hearing people and VOIP providers.
-OR-
We can demand that the FCC end open (cuthroat) competition. Once the ten digit numbers are in place, the States can issue contracts with strict standards, equipment requirements, and features lists for their state residents.
I vote for returning relay service – IP and VRS – to the State governments.
(jk-II)
It sounds like Sorenson trying to use old AT&T’s way of monopoly which I am not for it!
We, the customers have our rights to choose which VOIP we use …..
Any comments to my issue would be welcome..
Although I agree with Ed’s partial comment – “It’s very sticky issue” but we deaf/hard of hearing customers should stand up and voice rather than letting Sorenson to run our lives!
I don’t quite get the point of this article. Hearing people change providers all the time, but keep their phone numbers. Suppose someone who was using AT&T’s iPhone (with its Visual Voicemail feature) switched over to Verizon. Should Verizon be required to provide Visual Voicemail or support the iPhone?
Of course not. The providers all have different plans and features. It’s the customer’s choice. What is required is that the customer takes the phone number with him/her when switching providers, and the same principle should apply to VP users.
Ought that videophone will accept what customer pick thier favorite vrs like we had tty which will work with any telephone with same numbers………
I believe that SorensonVrs already become monoply..
SoresonVRS wants to have all deaf people to their puppets!
I agreed with jk-II. Sorenson spent a lot of $ on the equipments and research while the other vp companies took the advantage of vp100 & vp200.
It is hard not to ignore SorensonVRS. VP200 is a wonderful equipment! I am using I2eye at work and hate it. Why I2eye Vp is not getting better? I know Sorenson made the I2eye vp. Sorenson is so clever! Of course Sorensonvrs do not want to lose the customers!
What I think should occur –
If I have a VP-200, I’d have Sorenson as my default TN provider.
In few months later, I port my TN to HOVRS. Sorenson should reserve the right to take back the VP-200 and I’d forced to use my TN with HOVRS’s MVP.
If in another few months, I change my mind to port my TN to CSDVRS. HOVRS should reserve the right to take back the MVP and I’d be using my TN with CSDVRS’s Z device.
As for other VRS providers that do not manufacture or provide VideoPhones such as HawkRelay, CACVRS, SprintVRS, etc…if a consumer decides to port their TN with them then they shall use a generic VideoPhone such as the D-Link and other generic VideoPhones that you can find in Best Buy or Amazon.com. Unless the VRS provider is willing to pay a nominal fee to VRS company that owns the VideoPhone device.
I’m against the idea of turning our existing VideoPhones into vanilla devices. I love the way each VideoPhone has its unique features and whatnot – plus, it promotes healthy competition and benefits the deaf community greatly this way.
Phil,
Remember one big difference is that hearing persons pay for the service, and VRS users do not. In many of the phone plans (especially cell phones) have limited number of minutes. A few have unlimited, and others have like 1500 minutes and so on. These incentives are what helps consumers decide which products they want.
Also, VRS industry is not set up in a such way where one can use certain VP and when switching to a different non-device VRS provider and expect the new provider to provide new features – which is what some of the pagers enjoy (Blackberry user, for example, can change to a different provider). Blackberry is separate from the providers.
So should VRS industry do that as well? Separation of product and service? Unfortunately, although I consider that ideal, I don’t think this concept will fly in the VRS world simply because marketing of video phone alone is not profitable in the deaf/hoh market.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Ed,
Look at the wisdom of Apple business. It owns Mac software. Nowadays, Apple has the capability to use XP windows in their Mac computer. Switch to either software that people might want to use. Could Sorenson do the same? Apple doesn’t lose its identity. Sorenson entrepreneurs need to work together with other VRS providers.
P
Minnesotan,
What you are envisioning, I think is an ideal concept. VRS providers who already have videos would have distinct advantage. VRS providers who are planning to distribute Video Phones better do that before Dec 31, 2008 to gain the upper advantage. Those of VRS providers who do not have video phones may need to start negotiating with VRS providers who already have VP or find a video phone manufacturer.
I would insist, though, that if this system to happen, that once I pick one VP Distributor who is VRS provider to be the default VRS provider, I would want to have more than one VP. I know I echo this sentiment of many people of this. They would want to have one in kitchen, one in bedroom, and possibly one in garage/workshop/home office.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
I was going to say, allow VRS to keep their features and only number is portable. This would be equivalent to cell phones where they can port the number from one provider to other provider. Cell phone user is allowed to choose whichever provider they want based on features. This creates competition which is healthy.
However, for VRS, I realized something. It is going to depend on how monies are used. If VRS used public funds to create the features, then those must be portable too after all, we the taxpayers, own those features. And the base features probably need to be established. For example, VOIP protocol. This is already done now at low level. I guess we need to take a closer look at the funds. Public fund = we own it, we decide. Private fund = they own it, they decide.
bob
Bob, You made a very good point. I happen to know that VP (products) and its features are NOT subsidized by the Interstate TRS Fund. Only the VRS (interpreting part) is subsidized. According to your criteria, it appears that VRS providers own it thus they decide? eyes open & thumbs up, Ed
Bob,
One additional thought.
Since the FCC does not oversee video phones (VP) nor do they subsidize VP, does it mean that the FCC cannot give directives/regulate on distribution of vp and how they are utilized?
Ed
Very interesting… as a “native” in the deaf community and as a hearing person who enjoys the benefits of both worlds, I tend to compare what I can do in the greater community with what I and others like me can do in the Deaf community. My cell phone is just like my home phone, I have a number and anyone anywhere who uses a spoken language, no matter what kind of traditional phone can connect to me. I want that same connectivity with my deaf clients, friends and relatives. I want that for our healthcare providers. I want that for physicians who are Deaf to talk to colleagues who are also physicians. I want a person who is deaf working in a large company to be able to use a videophone from his or her desk, to call a coworker in another office or his or her spouse or kids at home. I want my mom who is deaf to be able to call and talk to her deaf friend or her friend who can hear directly and visually no matter what kind of equipment she or her deaf or “hearing” friend uses.
Right now, some people who are deaf can call my office directly by video. Others can not. I can call some but not others. Technology is complicated, creating a barrier not only for us but for all of our clients who truly want to communicate with persons who use ASL. Many ADA responsible clients truly want to communicate effectively but technology is actually hindering their ability to communicate and to do so most cost effectively. Would’nt it be great of an employee could use a telephone call to talk to a coworker in another office or Department through VRS? We are not fearful that it would replace interpreters who come to the site to work meetings and special events but it sure would create a better workplace. Interpreters working on site in person are necessary in many instances but in many others, Video remote would be great!
TTY machines sitting in drawers in hospitals, on tables in homes are becoming obsolete. Who would rather make a cumbersome TTY call when you can connect visually, person to person or person through Interpreter to another person who is equally as important in the conversation? IP relay maybe acceptable or the only option for some but it is just awful for a person who can hear.
Equipment is not given “FREE” to anyone. Everything comes with a price as nothing in this world is really free. VRS equipment is SELECTIVELY given to people who have a real potential to use the equipment to generate minutes which equates to income, profit for the VRS Companies. Read any opinion given when VRS rates are reconsidered. Each opinion includes the argument that extra income is necessary for development. There is development money in the VRS rate. Unless a VRS Company is taking only profits, there is money in the VRS rate now for development. Believe me, although the interpreters are doing well and equipment, lease space etc. has a cost, there is much more money in the VRS rate than is spent on personnel and equipment.
…and last but not least, why should’nt a deaf person or a hearing person select and pay for a videophone? If people are indigent (and who says all deaf people are?) then one might argue there needs to be social services or government programs to assist them. If my mom wants one, let her buy one. If her doctor wants to buy one, let him or her buy one. If my uncle living in France wants to talk to me via video, let him buy one. What a great Birthday or Christmas gift! Who ever imagined that anyone would pay $100.00 a month for telephone service? Many of us do because our lives revolve around the phone and the connectivity and opportunity it creates. You have to pay monthly for Broadband, why not pay a one time cost for the equipment you want to have? My iphone cost $300.00. I had to make a commitment for two years with AT&T when I bought it. If I opt out, I pay a penalty fee. I lost that great crowd of support you see in commercials that I had with Verizon but the features offered by Apple were too attractive. I still do not like AT&T but I love my iphone. A person who is deaf or a person who can hear should be able to buy a product regardless how many minutes they will use it.
The future is ours to create. I can’t wait to be able to call my mom who is deaf with my iphone, looking at her and she at me as we speak, without VRS interferene or call my daughter or her teacher at school and my business contacts or vendors regardless if they use spoken or visual language. That will be the day!
I am also a “native” hearing person of the deaf community, and I enjoyed Deborah Gunter’s comments. I agree with you 100%.
The provider you choose for your TN is the provider the hearing person will get when calling your TN. You can use whatever VRS provider you want when calling hearing family, friends, etc. Sorenson made a “business” decision in giving their product away for free. They can’t have their cake and eat it too! Relay services are FREE to consumers. You can’t force consumers to use a specific relay provider. I attended a function last night, and there were several deaf/hoh VRS consumers present. I mentioned to my Mom that her VP number had changed from a local TN to an “866″ number. She was unaware, and realized she might have lost her TN that she’s had for over 10yrs now. Apparently Sorenson is already changing consumer’s VP numbers, so that when hearing people call the consumer it automatically goes through Sorenson’s VRS? Another deaf consumer said there was rumor going around that hearing people will be charged long distance if they call deaf/hoh that are out of their local calling area? Is that why Sorenson’s changing the consumers’ numbers to “866″ numbers? I thought VRS was a free service for deaf/hoh AND hearing consumers?
Melissa, If deaf/hoh use 800/866 then yes the long distance calls will be free to the hearing person calling in. If deaf/hoh use TN (not the proxy one, but the upcoming real number) then the long distance will be charged to hearing person calling in. That is, unless VRS providers chose to absorb that. Whether they will or not is up to VRS providers to decide that. Ed
I had a general question for people on the blog. I don’t think I posted this in the right place, so I apologize about the content being un-related.
I read that captioning (via CapTel) is available through certain cell phones. Has anyone used this yet? What is the quality of the captioniong?
On my BlackBerry device, I use IP relay to make calls, but that requires that I type in my part of the conversation. It would be nice to be able to talk to people with my own voice, and read the captions of what they’re saying.
What are people’s experiences with CapTel on the cell phones?
If we start to ban vanilla features, and let people choose the devices and vrs provider. Who will be willing to pay for research and development when the company develop and invest hundred of bucks and being end having to let other vrs provider take advantage.
I would rather to see all vrs provider invest and compete. Too many people are waiting for mvp or Zo or could not afford to pay 100 buck for viable.
I believe time will come to separate equipment and provider. That is only solution. many of us can not afford to pay for equipment right now and let state take care of distribution of equipments.
Susan,
I don’t know the answer to your question. Folks, any experience using captioning telephone service on cell phones?
Ed
FAM,
What you suggest on separating equipment and service, I could not agree more, but the reality of that is that to just market video phones without service (VRS) is simply not profitable. Later on, I may explore this with a vlog on pro and cons of this idea.
However, I do think that state equipment programs can and should include video phones as part of their telecommunications products. This is doable and something we deaf/hoh can approach our state equipment distribution administrators to include the video phones as part of the program.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed