Let me put it this way. TRS rule specifically said that relay calls must involve two way party conversation through relay agent or video interpreter; must be participating. The only exception is retrieval of answering machine or voice mails. That’s it.

In the FCC Public Notice sometimes ago mentioned the difference between Video Relay Service (VRS) and Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). in that PN, it said classroom interpreting falls under VRI, not VRS.

Now this video conference calls: if the caller and called parties are able to communicate with each other; not an one way communication, theoretically this could be permitted. However, I see lot of “video conference” labeled when it should be labeled as online/phone education. If so, that falls under VRI, not VRS.

VRI means the cost of paying is from either customer or the company, not from federal fund whereas VRS is paid from federal fund.

Is this helpful?

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

Thank you for being upfront on this. Takes guts to apologize.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

I wonder if workshop events like this are legal? The presenter signs in ASL to a VRS interpreter, who then interprets the call into voice English to a X number of other interpreters, who then signs in ASL to their callers. Everyone involved are Deaf and use ASL except for the VRS interpreters. For example, see below:

“For ALL conference calls, do the following:
To join, use the Video Relay Service (VRS) and do the following:
Call VRS (see below). You are encouraged to call about 10 minutes before the start time.
Dial the number XXX.XXX.XXXX
Give the video interpreter the access code: XXXXXX.
You are now in a conference meeting. Wait for the meeting host to welcome you. You can use a service provider of your choice. The DPREC recommends
wonderfulvrs.tv. ”

Is this legal? Want to make sure it’s ok before I participate in conferences like this.

Thank you.

That would be the CSDVRS’s “Z” portable videophone I am still waiting for this VRS/VP company to sell me this one since last October 2008.

I do have my laptop programmed with HOVRS, but pretty heavy for me to carry it everywhere – 5 pounds as compared to 2 pounds of CSVRS’s “Z” VP.

My sincere apology to Mr. John Yeh.

Robert L. Mason (RLM)

RLM

I do not meant to point out John Yeh in any way. I have high respect for Yeh.

I just could not remmy the name of the VP company Yeh formed. Yes, that would be the Viable.

I must get confused with the Viable and other VP company. I could not remmy what name for this VP company run by hearing people. One of the Asian deaf guy works for that particular VP company which lead me to confuse him with the VP company lead by John Yeh. Yes, I know the difference between that Asian guy and John Yeh, but mistook him to be an associate of the VP company with Yeh.

My sincere apology to John Yeh. He is really a decent and great person.

Robert L. Mason

The question should really be which VRS company is going to wise up first and start selling the equipment and phone number to hearing customers for a profit?

The rules are in place to control costs. Costs of these new phone numbers are being billed to the FCC, I presume, so the hard line answer will be NO numbers for hearing people! They just don’t want to pay for it! So – how can we convince them to instead require that the VRS companies make their product with a phone number available to everyone – and charge fees to those who are “hearing?”

I hear you! Or rather, I see you! (didn’t come out quite what I intended it to

hmmm – if cell phones and VoIP can get TN, then theoretically speaking so can Video Phones. Does that require regulation addition or modification? I can’t say for sure…

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

You have right to be upset! Anyone should be able to get a vp/TN regardless of who they are. What you said you plan to do is let FCC know of your issues, go for it!

Ed

Good comments! The vote seems to be aye to allow hearing folks have TN if they have vp.

Ed