VRS 800 Issue
5 12 2009Folks..
Many of VRS users are confused about 800; the 800 that are tied to 10 digit phone numbers are legit, and those 800 that are not tied to 10 digit phone number are not allowed.
Huh?
Generally speaking the majority of VRS users think "who cares? I just want the system to work!"
So here are several very interesting ex parte letters on 800 number. What I did below was give you quotes from each commentators. Strongly suggest you click to the links to get full story. I started with FCC announcement and then rest from others.
From FCC:
"BUREAUS GRANT WAIVER OF IP TRS TOLL FREE NUMBER CHANGES
The FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs and Wireline Competition bureaus issued an order today temporarily waiving a requirement regarding treatment of toll-free numbers by Internet telecommunications relay service providers as clarified in an August public notice released by the Commission. To avoid a possible service disruption, the bureaus issued a four-month waiver of a portion of the "Toll Free Clarification Public Notice" that stated toll free numbers and 10-digit geographic numbers should not be directed to the same uniform resource identifier in the Internet-based TRS numbering (iTRS) directory. Providers who have removed toll-free numbers are directed to reinstate those numbers to the iTRS directory (Consumer and Government docket 03-123, Common Carrier docket 98-67, Wireline Competition docket 05-196)."
"We discussed the interest of the Consumer Groups (defined below) in working with the Commission to develop a means to reduce toll free number use and to eliminate toll free number abuse in general.."
"..confirm that the Consumer Groups support a notice and comment rulemaking proceeding designed to achieve the following objectives:
"Development of a plan to significantly reduce the use of toll free numbers by Video Relay Service (“VRS”) users.
"Any plan must also include a reasonable period of time for comprehensive consumer outreach and education — to be conducted by providers and the FCC — to transition consumers away from using toll free numbers and toward using geographic 10-digit numbers, similar to what happens when there is a change of area code."
"..the Consumer Groups support direct ownership of toll free numbers by consumers rather than providers as well as number portability of toll free numbers."
"Whether calling out or receiving calls, VP200 customers with their 800 numbers removed from the iTRS database are not connecting point to point with Snap!VRS Ojo customers; these calls are instead being automatically diverted to VRS."
"…these calls are instead being automatically diverted to VRS. Snap!VRS explained that the majority of customers who experience these diverted point to point calls do not complain about it because of their being accustomed to long-standing and wide-spread interoperability challenges and because many of them mistakenly believe that the devices themselves are the problem rather than understanding it as a systemic issue. "
"When an individual calls another person’s toll-free videophone number from an alternate provider’s video phone, the iTRS database will not recognize the number being called."
"If, on the other hand, a customer using a videophone (such as the Sorenson VP-200) calls a toll free videophone number that is managed by the same provider, the call will connect successfully as a point-to-point call. This is due to the fact that those toll-free numbers are still being maintained in the default providers’ proprietary routing database similar to the old proxy number system."
"This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that Sorenson Communications continues to violate FCC Rule Section 64.604(b)(6) by refusing to transmit Caller ID to the extent possible. The commission needs to require providers to utilize standard Caller ID fields to further facilitate the exchange of phone numbers."
"..how this action by Sorenson has undermined point-to-point calling capabilities for deaf users calling a Sorenson number from a non-Sorenson videophone. In such instances, the calls cannot be completed and this is causing mass confusion amongst consumers. Conversely, Sorenson-to-Sorenson videophone point-to-point calls function smoothly insofar as Sorenson retains the 800 numbers in an internal database, thereby creating a closed network."
"..we have 3 people going to multiple cities in our outreach effort to educate the consumers on local numbering (thank you neca funding). These are one to two hour presentations. Since November 12′" the entire meetings are dominated by the above issue and confusion. Our presenters themselves have a very hard time understanding what in going on and why "the phones are not working right"
Of course, ultimately FCC would rather hear from you – VRS Users. What do you want? Let FCC know.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
PS: In case the shortcut to link does not work, here is the long link for each.
SnapVRS
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020350761
Purple
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020350491
TDI
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020351013
CSDVRS
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020350234
The 800 #’s were a vestige of the ad hoc solutions the TRS industry has created in acheiving functional equivalency for its Deaf/HH consumers. The introduction of the Geographical Real 10-Digit Numbering scheme is supposed to do away with these ad hoc solutions.
I agree with the general sentiment of these petitions generated by various TRS providers. Deaf consumers should transition away from using 800 #’s and towards using their real 10-digit numbers. I did the same when I got my VP 340; I’ve distributed my real 10-digit number to my friends and colleagues.
However, a Deaf/HH person wanting an 800 # for a business should be allowed to have one, and that this number be placed in the iTRS database, just like a real 10-digit number. I would leave it to the discretion of the TRS providers in determing how 800 #’s should be distributed to legitimate Deaf/HH businesses.
This way, the mainstream public won’t be ‘confused’ by 800 #’s being used by Deaf/HH consumers in their personal capacity.
One of the ex parte letter suggested that 800 be not free. That is, monthly payment or something. If one argues on “functional equivalence” – hearing persons do not get 800 free; there are different pricing plans, but I think most common is a monthly fee plus minutes generated by 800 from 5 cents up to 25 cents per min. This typically is done by parents who want their college kids call home and the students do not need to pay for calls to home. Business, of course, pay for 800 service.
I agree. We should do away with 800/866 numbers. For those who wants them ought to pay for them.
I agree with both Cousin Vinny and Charge for 800/866 commenter. It should have not been given out in first place — many deaf were mislead believing that there would be charge for VP to VP calls if it was not local calls. Now this created an unnecessary mess — I had to explain to my friends why I couldn’t call their 800# — they seems to be perplexed why this have to happened.
I have said in past — if deaf owned business wants 800#, that’s fine with me. If a deaf person wants their own personal 800#, they have to pay for it! My sister (hearing) used to have 800# at home because her husband works out of home. Now, they don’t have it anymore because many people who call my brother in law use cell phone or VoIP, it cost the customers almost nothing for long distance calls.
I think FCC should issue an order that VRS stop giving out 800# (except deaf owned business). Anyone who have 800# should keep it or have an option to drop it.
Dave
I agree with both Cousin Vinny and Charge for 800/866 commenter. It should have not been given out in first place — many deaf were mislead believing that there would be charge for VP to VP calls if it was not local calls. Now this created an unnecessary mess — I had to explain to my friends why I couldn’t call their 800# — they seems to be perplexed why this have to happened.
I have said in past — if deaf owned business wants 800#, that’s fine with me. If a deaf person wants their own personal 800#, they have to pay for it! My sister (hearing) used to have 800# at home because her husband works out of home. Now, they don’t have it anymore because many people who call my brother in law use cell phone or VoIP, it cost the customers almost nothing for long distance calls.
I think FCC should issue an order that VRS stop giving out 800# (except deaf owned business). Anyone who have 800# should keep it or have an option to drop it.
Dave
Will we pay the long distance charge with out of state Point to Point video calls?
Tony,
It depends on the telephone plan the hearing person have. Most of them have unlimited phone plan; in this case, no charge. Those who have basic telephone plan;for example local calls free, but charges for long distance, then possibly yes these calls can be charged to the hearing person – not to the deaf/hoh.
Deaf/hoh who use VRS to call out of state, no charges to the deaf/hoh.
eyes open & thumbs up..
Yes, but Tony’s question leads to my questions, which is – -will they eventually set up some type of system where the Deaf video relay callers have to pay for long distance calls, much like they pay point to point for TTY relay calls that are long distance? I am wondering if taking away the 800 number and leaving only a local number will eventually lead to this? Yes, in this day and age, many people have a plan that allows for unlimited long distance for a fixed monthly rate that they pay to their phone company. Not everybody has this, however, and I’m just wondering if they are actually going to find some way to charge for this. Then again, there is probably no way to do it. If they could pinpoint the calls that well, then they could enact point to point charges for a IP relay and they could also count the state minutes to get public utility commissions in on this, which they would LOVE to be able to do! So maybe I’ve answered my own question. I’m not sure. This 800 number thing has always been confusing for me. I don’t know why they got it, but I also don’t know why it’s a problem.