Right now I am dealing with Soresnon that I have two VPs. One is VP100 and One is VP200. My home has VP100 and My work at different location has VP200 and I no longer work at different location and moved my business into my home office. I tried to transfer my home number from VP100 to VP200, all I needed is a password to get it transfered from VP100 to VP200. I called Sorenson Tech Support and explained my situation with Level 1 Tech and transfered to the next level tech and said that I can NOT have it by doing myself so they issue a ticket to send the tech man to come to transfer the number from VP100 to VP200. That call to tech support was on August 30th. 2 days later, Sept 1, I got an email from Tech Support saying they send the ticket to local tech man. It didn't happen until Sept 12. its two weeks! I got an email from local tech man to schedule which would be on Sept 13 or 14. Whoa it took long time as its 15 days waiting. I can NOT image that long. Its not same as QWEST, COX, COMCAST who will come within a day or two to correct the problem! SORENSON 15 days waiting???? So I decided to do my homework as research via websites, friends, etc and finally figured it out how it worked. I was able to transfer the phone number from VP100 to VP200 myself!! It was a success. So I emailed the Sorenson tech guy to cancel the ticket cuz they are SLOW. Now they asked me how I did and said that I am not supposed to do that. Right now they are telling me that I can NOT have two VPs for a person. Now they wanted the VP100 back. I remember very well when I first called the Sorenson Tech Support, what I do with VP100? Guess what he said you can keep it. Now I want to find out if Sorenson has no right to take VP100 back after I have the VP200. Since it was paid by phone bill monthly to FCC and FCC paid the $$ to Sorenson and other VRS provider. I am trying to find out if Sorenson has the right to take it back????? Anyone has the knowledge of legals/FCC policy??? Thanks for reading my comment. Regards!
Does Sorenson has the right to take VP100 back after getting VP200?
- Thread starter AZRKC
- Start date
VP100 or any VP device is never paid by FCC or billed extra tax on phone bill or taxpayers.
Only Video Relay Service is paid for by the taxpayer and charged as extra tax on everyone's phone bill.
So yes Sorenson have the right to take the VP100 back because their agreement clearly states that Sorenson let you use the VP but Sorenson still own it.
.
Only Video Relay Service is paid for by the taxpayer and charged as extra tax on everyone's phone bill.
So yes Sorenson have the right to take the VP100 back because their agreement clearly states that Sorenson let you use the VP but Sorenson still own it.
.
It does not matter if one per household or ten per household.
The point is that Sorenson asked for the vp-100 back and the agreement states that they clearly own the devices and have the right to ask for it back.
There is no state or fedreal laws saying when you recieve any "vp devices" Sorenson or Ojo Snap or Dlink or (any brand here) from VRS provider that it automatically belongs to you.
It comes down to the agreement between you and the VRS provider that gave you the device.
.
Dennis S.
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 1
There's a whole bunch of issues that this raises:
1) Lengthly "terms of service" (TOS) agreements are nearly impossible to read and understand in whole. I'm not a lawyer, but in the past, it has been upheld that fine print being used against the layman is not enforceable, especially since part of the installation process involves "OK"ing this agreement and in the interest of time, the user cannot read and comprehend everything.
2) There is the customer expectation that they own the device. I am not a lawyer, but there is no clear expectation, OTHER than the language in the TOS, that the device belongs to Sorenson. There is no message that reminds users "This device is the property of Sorenson and can be reclaimed at any time."
3) Many users have moved and their contact info that Sorenson has on file is inaccurate. Their devices, unless disabled at the server, will continue to operate for whomever they belong to. In fact, many people have given their devices to others as hand-me-downs or to spread the wealth -- if they truly knew it was on loan, they would know that would be in violation of their TOS.
4) There is an implication that the devices are "free" not "on loan" which implies that they belong to the user, not to the company.
However, there is one thing that is in Sorenson's favor -- if they state as part of the application process that surrendering your VP-100 is a pre-requisite to getting the VP-200, and you agreed to that during the application process, you're SOL.
1) Lengthly "terms of service" (TOS) agreements are nearly impossible to read and understand in whole. I'm not a lawyer, but in the past, it has been upheld that fine print being used against the layman is not enforceable, especially since part of the installation process involves "OK"ing this agreement and in the interest of time, the user cannot read and comprehend everything.
2) There is the customer expectation that they own the device. I am not a lawyer, but there is no clear expectation, OTHER than the language in the TOS, that the device belongs to Sorenson. There is no message that reminds users "This device is the property of Sorenson and can be reclaimed at any time."
3) Many users have moved and their contact info that Sorenson has on file is inaccurate. Their devices, unless disabled at the server, will continue to operate for whomever they belong to. In fact, many people have given their devices to others as hand-me-downs or to spread the wealth -- if they truly knew it was on loan, they would know that would be in violation of their TOS.
4) There is an implication that the devices are "free" not "on loan" which implies that they belong to the user, not to the company.
However, there is one thing that is in Sorenson's favor -- if they state as part of the application process that surrendering your VP-100 is a pre-requisite to getting the VP-200, and you agreed to that during the application process, you're SOL.
Nesmuth
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,191
- Reaction score
- 1
When I got the VP-200, I also asked if I could keep the VP-100, and was surprised when the installer explained that was not permitted. The reason I asked to keep the 100 was to have it as a backup in case the 200 didn't work right. Anyway, the next day, sure enough, I was having problems with the 200. That now-gone 100 was sure looking good, and had no VRS access for a couple of days until I determined the router needed to be replaced due to the 200's sensitivity with older routers.
I would point out that the FCC's reimbursement policy is only to pay for costs associated with providing VRS services. This means only the VPs that Video Interpreters use in VRS centers would be eligible. VPs given to customers do not qualify for reimbursement. The FCC's TRS Fund manager, NECA, posted cost reporting instructions on their website that VRS companies need to report. On page 4, it says:
"1. Marketing/Advertising: Marketing/Advertising is defined as being the expenditures by the provider to persuade users to choose their particular relay service over that of other relay service providers. All costs over $10,000 should be itemized. The cost of equipment given to, sold to, and/or used by relay callers, and call incentives are NOT to be reported as expenses."
This clearly indicates that Sorenson doesn't get paid by the FCC for the VP-100s and 200s that they give to customers. I believe that when the FCC passed the Interoperability ruling last May 2006, Sorenson basically lost much incentive to speed up VP-200 distribution because there's no profit in it. This would also explain why they target frequent users of Sorenson VRS for replacing their 100 with a 200. I personally don't blame them...it's not a popular decision, but it's a very good business decision.
The first sentence of the agreement.
"Thank you for ordering the VP-100 Premium Sorenson VRS® Service & Products (collectively the "VRS "). We hope you will enjoy your use of the VP-100. We will install the VP-100 videophone and let you use it for free, although we will continue to own the device. "
http://www.sorensonvrs.com/media/VP100_agreement.doc
http://www.sorensonvrs.com/media/VP200_agreement.doc
"Thank you for ordering the VP-100 Premium Sorenson VRS® Service & Products (collectively the "VRS "). We hope you will enjoy your use of the VP-100. We will install the VP-100 videophone and let you use it for free, although we will continue to own the device. "
http://www.sorensonvrs.com/media/VP100_agreement.doc
http://www.sorensonvrs.com/media/VP200_agreement.doc
The Dlink is ok, but doesn't have the deaf-friendly software that makes the VP-100 and especially the 200 that much more appealing. Besides, these D-links are about $200 a piece, a price that many Deafies probably cannot afford. I personally don't have a problem with the question of ownership because the value is in the use of the service itself, not in the ownership of hardware.