Comments on: VRS 800 Issue http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/ POSTS ALERTS REGARDING TRS & ITS RELATED ISSUES Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:46:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Terpgirl http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74585 Terpgirl Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:33:46 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74585 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. 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.

]]> By: edsalert http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74413 edsalert Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:48:52 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74413 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.. 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..

]]> By: Tony http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74409 Tony Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:44:32 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74409 Will we pay the long distance charge with out of state Point to Point video calls? Will we pay the long distance charge with out of state Point to Point video calls?

]]> By: Dave http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74386 Dave Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:25:08 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74386 I agree with both <b>Cousin Vinny</b> and <b>Charge for 800/866</b> 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

]]> By: Dave http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74385 Dave Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:24:16 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74385 I agree with both <b>Cousin Vinny<b> and <b>Charge for 800/866<b> 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

]]> By: Charge for 800/866 http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74383 Charge for 800/866 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:37:21 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74383 I agree. We should do away with 800/866 numbers. For those who wants them ought to pay for them. I agree. We should do away with 800/866 numbers. For those who wants them ought to pay for them.

]]> By: edsalert http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74381 edsalert Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:52:33 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74381 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. 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.

]]> By: Cousin Vinny http://www.edsalert.com/2009/12/05/vrs-800-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-74373 Cousin Vinny Sun, 06 Dec 2009 03:51:43 +0000 http://www.edsalert.com/?p=1018#comment-74373 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. 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.

]]>