Proposal for Portability on Number only, not Equipment
9 03 2009All…
I imagine many of you are wondering about portability issue regarding LN from VRS provider and VP from VRS. Are both "portable"? If you remember my past vlogs, right now because of technology issues only LN is portable, not the equipment. What does that mean? It means you can’t port equipment to a different VRS provider. For example, if you have – oh say – VP 200, and you like SnapVRS, you can port your LN to SnapVRS, but you cannot port VP-200 to use SnapVRS services.
A big "but but" doesn’t Number Order require BOTH LN and Equipment be portable? Order stipulates that, yes. Is that a good idea? Personally, I don’t think so. We all know that if VRS providers are required to do that, you will lose the original features.
CSDVRS suggests another approach which is for FCC to:
"Eliminate requirement for CPE to operate on another VRS provider’s network when the user ports his or number to a new default provider."
What this means, port only number, not the equipment to a new VRS provider of your choice. Rationale: increase incentive for VRS provider to stay in the game and improve their features (if forced to port equipment, they may stop doing research and development for new features or worst still may abandon VP altogether), functional equivalent to VoIP and Cell phone industries (have to give up equipment to get a new equipment if you change to a new service), and other what seems to me justifable rationales.
Click and see what you think. Let us know..
Remember this is not a rule making proposal – at least not yet. CSDVRS will need to submit a rulemaking request to modify existing Number Order on this if the company wants to pursue it further.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
CSDVRS’ proposal is a terrible idea and they’re doing this because 90% or more of the VP users have a FREE VP-200/VP-100. FREE is the keyword here. The solution CSDVRS need to take upon is to give away their Z products for FREE and capture their fair share of the market. This is a free-market enterprise and we should not submit to socialism. Personally, I think its a rip-off when VRS companies sell their VP products. Like many consumers, I will only take a VP device that is free.
Oh great! Now CSDVRS and Sorenson wants to make me stuck. I waited a long time to get CSDVRS Z and Snap ojo and still have not gotten!. I’m stuck with Sorenson VP. If i must give up equipment before change VRS or if i must use only equipment from VRS I use, I will be stuck with Sorenson all the time. I don’t want wait many many months for others to give me equipment. I want use Sorenson equipment and “port” equipment to other VRS. Before FCC supports CSDVRS, FCC must require all VRS including CSDVRS and Snap and Hovrs mvp to give equipment immediately to everyone who wants it instead of force deaf to wait many months to get different equipment. Not fair–hearing can get different equipment immediately. I hope NAD will fight so that I will not be stuck with Sorenson all the time while wait for CSDVRS and others to give me their equipment after important few deafies get theirs first.
Is CSDVRS the only company recommending this. I thought Sorenson and GoAmerica (HOVRS) also suggested the same thing. Maybe they just said it can’t be done yet.
I find it worrisome that the FCC will make a law forcing VRS companies to give up their equipment to other VRS providers. This takes away from the spirit of compitition. Imagine if this rule had been in effect since VRS first came out we would still be using VP-100s and eye2i videophones and there would be no incentive for further development or for the other VRS companies to develop the other wireless devices that are soon to come out. Not only this, but VRS companies will lose the incentative to maintain the devices so if your videophone breaks your current VRS provider might not have the expertise to repair it and the provider of the equipment might refuse to fix it since you are not using thier VRS service so you may be out of luck.
It is my opinion that the Deaf Community would find it beneficial to support measures that encourage compitition rather than hinder it.
CR
Midwestern,
I see CSDVRS proposal as an oppoty to enchance capitalism; freebie is more closely to socialism. Welfare mentality is how I see it.
Thanks for your remarks, though.
Ed
CR,
Yes, I believe most, if not all, VRS providers support that concept.
I agree with your thinking.
Ed
Midwestern,
Correct what I said. Actually with CSDVRS proposal, VRS providers still can distribute VP free if they so choose. It is just that I don’t support freebies myself. Too many VPs are on the “unused” shelves -gathering dusts. If deaf/hoh purchase VPs, they will more than likely use them instead of putting them on shelf, never to use again.
Ed
Hi Ed Bosson. Always like your site. It’s nice that you can afford to buy a VP. Most of my friends and I cannot afford it. Its hard to pay for high speed but we do it because we have to. Paying for it will be impossible for most of us–especially with bad economy today and many people loosing their jobs.
Also, Ed Bosson, you said many people have many VPs? Lucky you and your friends for being privileged. I and my friends have been waiting for a long time to get non-sorenson VPs but am always told we are on waiting list or “soon.” Hard to choose like you said when nobody will give us non-sorenson VPs.
Even though I disagree strongly with you on this issue, Ed Bosson, I always appreciate your keeping us informed on issues and your perspectives.
Jan,
I understand your position very well. It is for that reason why I support State Equipment Distribution program to include Video Phones as well. Many states with equipment distribution program say will not include vp because one or two VRS providers distributes them free. That means less choices for the deaf/hoh. If states are willing to include video phones as part of their distribution, then deaf/hoh who really cannot afford them can get them through that state equipment distribution. That would make the choices available for deaf/hoh as well.
Thank you for your complimentary words.
Ed
If CSDVRS proposal is accepted by FCC, that means I will be stuck with Sorenson because i cannot get those other VP from other provider. I asked many times from CSDVRS and other VRS for their devices but still have not gotten it. I guess I am not important enough for them but point is that if CSDVRS succeed, many people like me will have to stay with Sorenson. Seems conflict with Capitalism if people have no options yet. I learned in college economy class that when people have options, businesses compete and invent new things. Right now I have no options of VP because I have only old VP from Sorenson and cannot get other VP from anyone else except for D-Link which does not work with LN anyway.
I support forcing Deaf to pay for VPs but only if they are priced close to what hearing individuals pay for thier phones. Somewhere in the 25.00 to 50.00 range which is what a typical phone goes for at Wal-Mart. If we were forced to pay the full price of the videophones I think most of us would be shocked at the prices. Most Videophones are priced at 500 dollars or more according to people that I have talked to in the industry.You can see how that would make them unaffordable for the majority of Deaf People.
Ed about your comment on State Distribution. I am not so sure that will encourage competition. I can’t see what would prevent the state from simply choosing the cheapest videophone to distrubute and who knows if that videophone will meet our needs.
I will have to think about that a little bit before I form my opinion on that.
I recall TTYs were distrubuted in the same manner. Everyone in the state had the same model TTY as my mom and I did. Nobody bought their own TTY because they were too expensive.
I guess you could think of it as beggers can’t be choosers and if you want a nicer phone then pony up the money for it.
Like I said I will have to think about that more.
CR
Edsalert Readers,
Obviously lot of people have differing opinions on this one. Lot of ways to look at it from different perspectives. That’s GREAT…
One quick comment: unfortunately most state equipment distribution choose to use RFP procedure to chose one equipment. In that case, the limitation is obvious. Texas and a few other states who practice voucher program allows multiple manufacturers. Texas for example, one can get a TTY from Krown, American, Ultratec, and few other exotic companies. This, I think, is ideal.
Anyway, keep the comments coming as they do give valuable insights of what you all think. Once a while comments have actually changed my mind.
Cheers…
Ed B
Fred,
Your point is VERY valid! The “peneration” into deaf world by VRS providers in distributing/selling video phones may not be enough. Keep in mind, though, that if CSDVRS proposal is accepted by the FCC, it will take about 12 to 18 months before the proposal is finally incorporated into the relay rule. That is federal bureaucracy ;-] Hopefully the “penetration” issue will be resolved by then.
Ed
Ed,
I think Texas system of using vouchers is a great idea. I had not thought about that and it is perhaps the reason why I am resistant to having a state distribution program for VRS. I can see how the voucher program would keep the competition alive. Basically if we want a nicer model then we would pay the difference and we still have a choice.
Unfortunately, the state I live in does not have this system and they have only distributed ultratec TTYs and alarm flashers for as long as I can remember. Thanks for opening my eyes.
CR
Not every state distributed TTYs for free, so if videophones were to enter the state distribution system, probably not all states would choose to do that.
With the fee system on all phones, possibly states would be more willing now to take this on. Vouchers would make it possible to let each of us have our choice of models.
With competition we could all look forward to improvements every year in VP technology and features; what remains to be seen is whether a voucher system would permit the majority to upgrade on a regular basis or force them to use obsolete equipment far longer than useful.
With high speed fees running around $50 per month, more expensive than average telephone fees of about $20 for basic service, we need to pay attention to keeping a way open for deaf people to obtain free equipment.
CR wrote:
>> “Unfortunately, the state I live in does not have this system …”
Does anyone remember the “old” days before ADA? Before the ADA, the state associations and the NAD worked together to lobby for state governments to meet the unique needs of the Deaf community. TRS started long before the ADA because lots of Deaf individuals in many states lobbied the legislatures to establish TRS and TTY programs.
Remember, the FCC does NOT pay for equipment. The FCC only pays for minutes of service.
Suppose we all want VP-200′s (or something similar manufactured by a mainline consumer company like D-Link) and we want those to be “ours” so we can move them to any VRS provider: How do we do that?
The same way we got the original TTY programs: we go together as a community to the state PUC/PRC and to the state legislature and we lobby for what we need.
stuck wrote
“I hope NAD will fight…”
How can the NAD fight for us when many of us are no longer members, and not paying annual dues? Many of us are not making donations to the NAD anymore. They already had to reduce staff, and accept salary reductions because “we” do not donate enough money anymore. How can they fight for us if we do not “fight” for the NAD by raising money and paying annual membership?
There Ain’t No Free Lunch!
jk-II wrote:
“How do we do that?
The same way we got the original TTY programs: we go together as a community to the state PUC/PRC and to the state legislature and we lobby for what we need. ”
In my eyes this is another negative point about State Distribution programs. I would rather just deal with one large entity (FCC) like we are doing now than with 50 seperate ones. At least everything will be consistent. You wont have a deaf person in New York dealing with a radically different distribution program that someone in Utah. I believe that it is harder to ignore an entire nation of deaf people than a single state when there is something that needs to be done.
JK-II,
I love history as history often defines who we are, and helps us re-define our current history to correct the mistakes made from past history or strenthen concepts from success of past history.
Sadly, you’re right about number of members on NAD. I myself sometimes have questions about NAD – nonetheless I’m member and I have contributed to NAD.
Dianrez,
It is a catch 22 situation. Empowerment vs freebie for those who truly need them. I think it is a case where balancing actions need to be made; the real question exactly what is balancing system? I don’t think we’ve gotten there yet. So ur arguments do have valid points – especially in these troubling economic times.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
Ed,
It amazes me how the transition in communications technology towards an internet-based connection has had a paradigmatic impact on more than just how we all get on a bandwidth. I observe a few transitional impacts here that have landed us in this quicksand puddle with VRS devices:
1. The internet has busted jurisdictional geographic boundaries and created a far more mobile customer base with product and service providers.
2. Us VRS users are now being bunched together with cellphone/wireless access users as well as VOIP users, instead of the traditional landline access users (aka TTY users). This means we are not locked down by our location, but rather by our technology used to make a communication contact.
3. Number portability has its basis in the concept of one person/one number, which still holds true in the land line and cellphone industry, but really now has become one person/”one service provider’s device” in the VRS industry(and possibly also on the VOIP platform???), even if you have number portability between providers.
4. Text service providers will allow you to port between providers with the same texting device as long as the SIM card for the provider will work on that device and its O/S. If I have a specific model BB for Verizon and Sprint supports that BB model, I should be able to switch providers but keep the device (guess buying a SIM card is akin to getting a new device, but it has to be a tad cheaper than the device itself, wouldn’t ya think?).
What I am getting at is that the VRS providers, by allowing you to port only the number onto their network, but not with your existing device, are forcing you to “buy” something in addition to getting on thier network with your ported number. Never mind that I am giving them IP operator minutes by switching services, I am also cashing out for their device (except for the freebie devices) just to be bundled to that service. The difference between deafies and hearies here is that a SIM card for a cellphone costs less than a VP device.
I guess the VP device industry is in its infancy as far as VRS users are concerned, while cellphone companies are far more technologically internconnected by parts and operating standards so that economies of scale work better for pricing options for consumers. That is why its in their interest not to allow for porting between devices because of the intensive R & D that has gone into their whole business model, from VP device to internet to enduser, etc…and all the startup costs have to be recovered somehow. Now is too early to see a change in their revenue model.
In closing, we are trying to use the access experience of hearies as a framework for modeling the access experience for us deafies, but to certain significant differences we are not yet able to experience “the model experience”.
I shall shaddup now. I fear I have rambled on too much.
Thanks for open eyes, Ed.
Bob L.
Bob,
Your feedback is always welcome and informative as always.
On #4 you mentioned. I think, correct me if I’m wrong, it requires prior agreement between the cell phone services; that is, Sprint and Verizon would have to agree to that to make it possible. If that’s true, that means each VRS providers would have to agree with each other before allowing porting of equipment. Will that happen? Right now – not very likely.
Your other observations are intriguing and something to chew on when I sit on a recliner drinking a fine apertif.
Cheers…
Ed
A friend emailed me this story:
To catch wild pigs, one puts a single fence in the meadow with corn kernels scattered beside it. After the wild pigs scouted around and slowly became used to feeding there, a second fence was put on the other side of the corn, leaving two sides open. Several days later, the wary pigs were back and feeding as before. A third fence then was put up, leaving space between the three lengths of fencing.
More days later, a fourth fence was put up, leaving all corners open. When the pigs became comfortable with that, the corners were closed up. one by one, several days apart. Finally the last corner was closed up when all the pigs were inside feeding happily.
By that time, they had become so accustomed to the situation that they had forgotten how to be free and how to forage for their own food and the farmers now had full control of them for their own purposes.
We deaf need to watch the systems that others put up and not forget how to keep our freedoms.
Howdy Eddie:
As I read several commets on this issue…
Something I havent seen anyone’s comment – now I ask you a question – since you are the “father of vp project”, what was your first intent to have video phone??
About the CSD program, boyee! I had “similar” problem with CSD (to my understanding that CSD is separated from CSDVRS, pls correct me if I’m wrong)
for the CSD becoming my nbr #1 pest to beg me to purchase their equipment which I kept on “telling them that I decline their offer” on the7th or 9th call, I decided not to answer that “dummy” call – finally they left me alone PHEW!
As for people who can’t afford to get the high speed internet, some who lives in the “out of the range for the internet service”, I admit I dont think it’s fair for them to be “forced” to have that kind of internet service – I think it ought to have “wireless ” service and even for the cable and/or telephone company should have “special” program for people who cant afford to have that vp as long as they have the proof from agency for the deaf …..
I somewhat think it’s part of monology (spell???) for the CSD to make a proposal to the FCC to keep its face and name looking so “cool” or something like that which I hate! I prefer to choose a VRS provider who is humble and be more willing to help rather than getting attention to its “famous” name – know what I mean HUH?
Keep eyes open and thumbs up!!!
Dianrez,
Very good analogy. Similar to what I call Baudot Syndrome; where we deaf/hoh persons were trapped into one mode of TTY and never really upgraded to better signaling. Video phones broke the “hold”.
Ed
(corrected text as of March 10)
May,
A few corrections: I am father of VRS, not video phones. Jim Sorenson is the one that started the video phone and distributed VP freely to the deaf. CSD and CSDVRS are not the same, right. CSD does not sell or lease video phones, it is CSDVRS (now called The Z Company) that sells Video Phones. It is CSDVRS who made that proposal idea to the FCC, not CSD.
Your suggestion of getting gov’t to pay for high speed Internet service. I think this should be done, but for the poor deaf/hoh people who really cannot afford this. Rest of us who can afford it, should be able to pay for the services.
I agree with your premise that VRS providers should focus on deaf/hoh consumers. I believe a few of them actually do that – focus on consumers only. We will see how things work out over time, and whether the FCC will take action on some of the abuses by the VRS providers or not.
Cheers.. Ed
Thanks for correcting me! SMILE!
Yes I agree with you 100% about getting gov’t to pay for high speed internet svc. Yes you hit the right dart – I’m speaking of people who can’t afford to have high speed internet and the rest of us who can afford it should pay out of our pocket…
Thank you again for correcting me..
Cheers!
Actually, Ed, CSDVRS is not the Purple Company, unless, I am behind on some earth-shaking news. You may be thinking of HOVRS. You are correct, CSDVRS is a corporation that has been spun off from the non-profit organization of CSD.
Transplanted Texan,
Oh, dear – you are absolutely right. I should have known better. My face is beet red right now.
HOVRS changed to Purple. CSDVRS changed to The Z company.
[blushing]
Ed
Ed,
Minor correction on your end, you had mentioned Jim Sorenson is the one that started the video phone. I have to disagree with you because he did not create the Video phone. Video Phone (techincally) has been around since 1960′s.
Looks like you may have forgotten Polycom, Tandbergs & various other companies, they all had videophone out for a long time but they were very expensive and very reliable product. What Jim Sorenson did was created a cheap version of videophone and gave them free to the Deaf Community with strings attached which took 5 years for FCC to finally realize it and remove the strings!
True Interopertality finally is here!
J
Jon,
I was referring to VRS being jump-started by VP-100; in that sense, SorensonVRS gets the credit for helping make VRS industry into what it is today.
Of course, I knew about other video phone manufacturers ;-]
Yeah, true interoperability is here, but still needs work. I think within a few years, we’ll see win-win-win situation for all parties including VRS providers, gov’t and consumers.
Cheers…
Ed
Sorry Ed….videophone were first made in 1938. The first concept came out in 1910. So, we’re a long way off from having the 1910 videophone concept *evil wink*. You’ll find this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone
In my mind, D-Link was the FIRST to sell equipment that was easier to use at home (hook up to TV). Sorenson did make D-Link but gave D-Link the license to sell. Sorenson was trying to replace these video-conferencing equipments because they were expensive and requires T1. In my eye, credit goes to HOVRS — not Sorenson. Sorenson was the SECOND company to expand their research & development what we know as VP100 and VP200.
David
David,
This one I’m familar with. It went to the court. I will not touch on this as this one was very controversial. I have definite opinion on this, but I ain’t sharing that with the world ;-]
Cheers…
Ed