Do you guys use CSDVRS Z-340?

...

Exactly, that is my point. Having proxy solves all of the PEOPLE's issues with routers and port forwarding and such...

I think FCC doesn't care, I am pretty sure providers brought up this point during the meetings they held over the past year...

I think it would be difficult to get a petition up there and get noticed by fcc... most deaf people are not technology oriented and wont really care about this.

i cant find the document but I am sure the CSD folks here can provide you with the link to the fcc ruling on TN and vrs providers etc.


TechBill said:
I would like to see the link I am curious about it now ...

If it in the fcc ruling that providers cannot use gateway or SIP then I will be happy to sign a petition to have the ruling change because it not fair that hearing people have it easy using voice call with SIP like Skype and do not need techinal knowledge to set up voice commuciation software that uses real phone number and internet while we Deaf Folks need to depend on vrs company or someone to come and set up and it if got probelm or router goes bad that we can't just go run out to Best Buy and replace it and we are at the mercy of techinal support people to come out again and reset the router.


I am techinal advance person and I do not work for any VRS and Deaf Folks in my area always email me to come out when they have VP problems because they don't want wait for week to have one of vrs tech person come out and fix their problem or when they buy a new wireless router to replace the crappy 604 router.

I don't even use DMZ and it stupid to have different VRS devices fighting over who get to use the popular video conference port 1720 because all VRS knows that is the "money port"


SIP or Gateway will emlimate all those problem and make things easier like people can call from Skype software to a different brand software without needing to be at the mercy of any software companies ....



.
Click to expand...
 
qwerty123 said:
there no FCC ruling on sip

vp200 already have sip same upnp
Click to expand...

Ok, you clearly shouldnt talk about things you dont know.

SIP and upnp are in no way related.

and vp200 does not have a SIP stack, only h323.

----

SIP vs H323

UPNP vs Manual port forwarding vs DMZ
 
ddd said:
Ok, you clearly shouldnt talk about things you dont know.

SIP and upnp are in no way related.

and vp200 does not have a SIP stack, only h323.

----

SIP vs H323

UPNP vs Manual port forwarding vs DMZ
Click to expand...

Yeah I was wondering the same thing, :lol:
 
Last edited:
what version firmware do you have on the 2wire gateway? Who is your internet service provider? What state do you live in?
Thanks,
John
 
One more thing on Proxy Servers..

The reason you cannot find the FCC ruling regarding use of a "proxy server" DDD is because a ruling forbidding it DOES NOT exist. Please take a look at your MVP (if you have one) and do a network trace and review the packets that travel down your home network and tell me if you still think it does not use a proxy. It is pretty clear what the VP-100, VP-200, VPAD, MVP and Z-340 use to connect. The Z-340 uses SIP and can also use H.323 to make and receive calls. If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to comment.
Thanks,
John
 
johncharris said:
what version firmware do you have on the 2wire gateway? Who is your internet service provider? What state do you live in?
Thanks,
John
Click to expand...

What I have is this:

Model: 270HG Gateway

Software Version: 4.25.19

Internet provider is AT&T

I live in Missouri
 
It sure amazes me that alot Deaf people made up the ideas of FCC regulations where they actually does not exist. This mades me wondering if they really read the real FCC website or just heard a Deaf guy who is really drunk at the bars and believe in them. Again, still amazes me!

DHB
 
diehardbiker said:
It sure amazes me that alot Deaf people made up the ideas of FCC regulations where they actually does not exist. This mades me wondering if they really read the real FCC website or just heard a Deaf guy who is really drunk at the bars and believe in them. Again, still amazes me!

DHB
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: Agreed.
 
TechBill said:
I am aware of FCC law no longer allowing fake proxy number after June or whenever the date is but I don't think it applies using sip/proxy/gateway with real number and still is allowed.

*snip*

Again I can be wrong but I don't hear any rules about banning the use of sip/proxy/gateway but only FCC rules I know of is banning the use of fake/old proxy number.
Click to expand...

I think the intent of the FCC's ruling on that was to prevent carriers such as Sorenson or Snap from entrenching themselves by telling their users, "Oh, don't register for a real number - keep using the numbers we assigned you way back. They won't work with anyone else's systems, so be sure to tell your friends to get our VPs and use only our VRS."

Now that we're able to get numbers that work in the real world, as long as users can continue to call each other, I don't see why the FCC has to favor any kind of technology over another. The H.323 codec standard has been in place since Netmeeting was big. Until the FCC rules otherwise, I guess that's the standard we'll all be using to call each other. In the meantime, I'll be on my MVP.
 
ddd,

you need to stop addressing csdvrs as CSD because CSD and CSDVRS divorced long time ago. CSDVRS is now considered ZVRS and we can stop calling them CSDVRS and start addressing them ZVRS.

CSD is simply Communication Service for the Deaf. not a VRS entity.


know the history: http://www.zvrs.com/about/history.aspx (notice the zvrs in the link! )
 
DDD, you are an idiot and a prime example of what is wrong with our community. Stop trying to be a deaf watchdog, there ar plenty of people wasting their time doing that already. Ask Mr. Ed, he is another self professed watchdog. When are we going to stop acting like victims. We are part of the reason why vrs providers do all this. The facts is that they all want money, plain and simple. They are all the same, they come and say that they care about deaf and hoh, the truth is that all the vrs companies are ran by idiotic, greedy business lackeys. So in short mate, stop your crying.
 
Hey

I honestly with you guys, ZVRS Z-340 wifi is NOT good at all!!! plus do not trust ZVRS at all, they re going to rip u off about port fowarding issues plus that product is rip off as well, WIFI is not GOOD at all. I used that from my friend, his coverage is strong from his router but sadly, its only 49 percent singal of wifi?! omg its so sad
 
Z-340 is not necessary to use port forwarding. Why do you think Z-340 must require port forwarding anyway?? OJO works fine without port forward and I am sure Z-340 would work fine without port forwarding. Why do you think that ZVRS MUST use port forwarding...it doesn't make sense!
 
lilbugsb3 said:
I honestly with you guys, ZVRS Z-340 wifi is NOT good at all!!! plus do not trust ZVRS at all, they re going to rip u off about port fowarding issues plus that product is rip off as well, WIFI is not GOOD at all. I used that from my friend, his coverage is strong from his router but sadly, its only 49 percent singal of wifi?! omg its so sad
Click to expand...

It that your review or your opinion?
:slap:

I don't believe you have the right to speak that. Everyone have a opinion of their own and you don't speak for anyone.
 
RedWolf said:
Z-340 is not necessary to use port forwarding. Why do you think Z-340 must require port forwarding anyway?? OJO works fine without port forward and I am sure Z-340 would work fine without port forwarding. Why do you think that ZVRS MUST use port forwarding...it doesn't make sense!
Click to expand...

I think lilbugsb3 meant local number ported.
 
Back
Top