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

I don’t know the answer to your question. Folks, any experience using captioning telephone service on cell phones?

Ed

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.

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?

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!

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

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