Comments on: FCC Adopts Interim Rates for VRS

By: sorensonkilled

sorensonkilled — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:23:53 +0000

Sorenson Communications has filed a petition for review of
the FCC’s rates with the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th
Circuit. The 10th Circuit is located in Denver and the filing states that it
is an appropriate choice because it is close to Sorenson’s Headquarters
…in Salt Lake City. The filing is a one page document and does not have much information.

By: CW

CW — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:26:20 +0000

You are absolutely correct, competition is a very good thing. It’s a very tricky postion the FCC is in. They have to balance being efficient and saving tax payer money and also create an environment that fosters competition. I wouldn’t worry about Sorenson becoming so big that they can dictate to the FCC what the rate should be. That won’t happen because the FCC sets the rates and they do look at Sorenson’s books. If you do keep the tier structure I don’t think you the rates should be this different. There really is no economic justificaiton for this. If I’m the FCC I would be pushing some form of mobile VRS. It would help with getting the mandate to full equivalent service and it would be an open race to all the competitors. VRS is in its infancy, there should be a lot more innovation going forward. But the most important thing they need to do is come out with a long-term plan. You can’t keep doing this every year or every 3 years. These companies can’t invest in the future if you are constantly threatening them with drastic rate cuts.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 08:56:32 +0000

I agree with all the statements about competition. Competition is crucial for this. As Claude Stout (sp?) said at the FCC workshop, “TTY and IP relay is only required to provide bare minimum service, and that is all they provide – -the bare minimum service.” Competition keeps us all on our toes. Having the appropriate set of skills is more critical in video relay than it is in other types of relay. Yes, there is a difference between a lousy TTY relay operator and a good one. However, there is a much greater difference between a lousy sign language interpreter and a good one. That is because we usually are not going word for word, but basing our interpretation on the meaning. Quality (or lack thereof) is more noticeable when you are going from one language to another than it is when you are transcribing the same language into two different forms. This does not mean that TTY relay is easier. It’s just a fact that poor transcription is usually a little easier to deal with than poor interpretation. And if it’s not a fact, it’s my opinion. Even if you disagree with me, I’m sure you agree that you want good interpreters and high-quality video relay. Without competition, we wouldn’t have what we have, even with all its flaws. We would have much less. I hope that never happens. I also agree with the fact that research and development is better when there is competition. Did you ever see anybody from TTY relay invent anything?

By: CR

CR — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:37:34 +0000

CW,

I understand where you are coming from but consider the alternative if FCC did not have a Tier structure

If FCC established a single rate that only Sorenson could provide service then the competition would wither away and Sorenson would be the only one left.

This might sound okay at first because Sorenson (despite what many bashers on here say) provides decent VRS services at a lower rate than anyone else. They also throw in a free Videophone to boot.

Take away the competition and this would change dramatically

Sorenson would have no incentitive to research and develop better equipment. They would not need to maintain a high quality their VRS service. If there is no competition I believe we would still be using the vp100 and newer exciting products that we are hearing about would probably be decades away rather than months or a few years.

Also, the rates would be cheaper at first but then later when Sorenson is the only dog in town they will be setting the rates. There will be nobody else who can do what they do so FCC will be forced to accept whatever rate Sorenson requests. If FCC doesn’t, Sorenson can simply exit the business and leave us without any VRS. Competition keeps the power where it belongs…in FCC’s hands. It also keeps us from having all of our chickens in one basket.

Companies like CSDVRS and Purple are important to VRS because they help drive innovation and keep the quality of our calls high. Even if they don’t provide VRS in the most efficient manner they need to be here to keep Sorenson on their toes and the VRS industry moving forward.

Look at the new technologies that Purple,Viable and CSD have brought to the market. Viable and Purple came out with mobile devices. CSD recently demontrated their VRS on the 4th generation iphone. Developments like this keep Sorenson sweating and it keeps the pressure on them to Research and Develop better products to stay ahead of the game.

By: CW

CW — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:28:35 +0000

The FCC has a problem with setting VRS rates. The problem is that Sorenson provides the service at a greater efficient manner than their competitors. As a result the FCC came up with the Tier structure. It’s a very bad idea to do this and is a waste of tax payer funds. By paying Sorenson less than their competitors for doing the same thing they are punishing the efficient provider and subsidizing inefficient providers. The FCC should just sent 1 rate for everyone (perhaps a small difference in tiers to give the small players an equal advantage given their lack of economies of scale), but certainly not such a big discrepency like this. It is absurd to pay company A one rate and Company B another rate just because Company B does it better. Would anyone intentionally pay a higher price for the same product if they were shopping at the store? Of course not. The FCC should reject the anti profit, anti business attitude in Washington. They are wasting money and killing jobs.

By: La La La La

La La La La — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:45:19 +0000

Terpgirl,

It was really one case, FCC had appealed the decision and Upper court denied it so in a way, Sorenson won 2.

That statement, “REMEMBER it had nothing to do with rates at all” was reflected on the previous court case. this time… Sorenson has filed an intent to file lawsuit if FCC has not replied by July 9th and OBVIOUSLY it has to do with RATES this time.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:55:03 +0000

“REMEMBER it had NOTHING to do with Rates at all”

what about the other case?

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 03:54:05 +0000

so $140 mil was a projection?

By: La La La La

La La La La — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:43:45 +0000

Lawrence J Brick,

According to Debtwire, Sorenson management TOLD them that they needed $4.90 per minute to service their needs, Debtwire figured it will come to $140 million dollars at the $4.90 rate NOT the previous rate which you used to apply against May 2010′s number.

By: La La La La

La La La La — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:41:34 +0000

TERPgirl…

Sorenson won a court case in 2007 which HAD nothing to do with rates at all! FCC had ordered Sorenson to stop using the money for lobbying purpose , using VRSCA to send post cards to protest against FCC’s possible decision back in 2007 ,

Court had ruled in favor of Sorenson that they are enabled to do freedom of speech marketing…

REMEMBER it had NOTHING to do with Rates at all