FCC deny Soresnon stay request

qwerty123

qwerty123

Active Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
0
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1287A1.pdf

We have before us a motion filed by Sorenson Communications, Inc. seeking a stay of the effect of interim rates for Video Relay Service (VRS) adopted by the Commission in a recent order.1 Although Sorenson nominally seeks a “stay,” it asks not just that we stay the interim rates, but also that we take affirmative steps to re-institute the former VRS rate that expired on June 30, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the request.
 
netrox said:
BTW, I stopped using SVRS. I am boycotting SVRS.
Click to expand...

Yes, especially since they have 84% market share! If the competition doesn't get better, I'm reminded that I saw something somewhere not too long ago about a Congressman maybe wants to look at this.....monopolizing, yanno....?
 
Tousi said:
Yes, especially since they have 84% market share! If the competition doesn't get better, I'm reminded that I saw something somewhere not too long ago about a Congressman maybe wants to look at this.....monopolizing, yanno....?
Click to expand...

So are they basically the 21st century of the AT&T monopoly back in the 80s? Hee.
 
It would be especially unwarranted to return to the Tier III rate of $6.24 per minute that applied under the 2007 Rate Order, which the Commission has recognized “significantly exceeded the estimate average per-minute costs of providing VRS.”
Click to expand...
FCC said.

Return back to $6.24?
 
qwerty123 said:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1287A1.pdf

We have before us a motion filed by Sorenson Communications, Inc. seeking a stay of the effect of interim rates for Video Relay Service (VRS) adopted by the Commission in a recent order.1 Although Sorenson nominally seeks a “stay,” it asks not just that we stay the interim rates, but also that we take affirmative steps to re-institute the former VRS rate that expired on June 30, 2010. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the request.
Click to expand...

appeal court deny stay request yestreday
 
netrox said:
Can't believe that SVRS is demanding special treatment.
Click to expand...


In an age where it seems everyone wants more from the federal gov't, it's refreshing to see someone as selfless as you.

You are willing to accept less for yourself and the deaf community, so others that need funding can get the monies that used to be spent on VRS.
 
I've reviewed the entire document and it bothers me that they're blacking out a lot of information of how this FCC Interim rate will affect Sorenson, by their own explanation. Additionally, few of these blackouts are declaration made by Scott K. Sorenson.

I wonder if we can obtain an complete copy of this Order.
 
Back
Top