Letter about Sorenson from Alfred Sonnenstrahl

A lot of good key points and I can see how and why Sorenson can be a monopoly.

Yiz
 
There's an elephant in the room that needs to be shown the door!!! :D
 
True, Sorenson can be a monopoly.

Why is the FCC allowing Sorenson practice reverse discrimination by not allowing hearing people have videophones and force them to use their services paid by federally managed funds?
Click to expand...

Many hearing people as relatives who know ASL very well, want to use VP or webcam without VRS. NAD filed petition to FCC about it.
 
Can be? With 80-85% market share, I think it already is.
 
This does remind me of the break up of AT&T.

Prior to the break up of AT&T, consumers couldn't buy their own telephones for other companies. The telephone had to be provided by AT&T, and remained the property of the phone company. Eventually they did offer phones for sale but they still had to be AT&T brand phones. It was practically a federal offense if you wanted to put in your own extension phone in another room without their permission. Also, AT&T was the only phone service provider. If you wanted phone service, you were stuck. It was their way or the highway.
 
Reba said:
This does remind me of the break up of AT&T.

Prior to the break up of AT&T, consumers couldn't buy their own telephones for other companies. The telephone had to be provided by AT&T, and remained the property of the phone company. Eventually they did offer phones for sale but they still had to be AT&T brand phones. It was practically a federal offense if you wanted to put in your own extension phone in another room without their permission. Also, AT&T was the only phone service provider. If you wanted phone service, you were stuck. It was their way or the highway.
Click to expand...

I remember those days, too, Reba.
 
Tousi said:
I remember those days, too, Reba.
Click to expand...

Now, that's what I call monopoly.

That also was the case in Canada back then. I think they put a stop to it when I was a child. Nowadays, you can buy a telephone from any stores you wish to. I do remember how you couldn't do any of these mentioned above without getting into trouble.
 
Banjo said:
Now, that's what I call monopoly.

That also was the case in Canada back then. I think they put a stop to it when I was a child. Nowadays, you can buy a telephone from any stores you wish to. I do remember how you couldn't do any of these mentioned above without getting into trouble.
Click to expand...
The original "The Phone Store" was in malls, and you could buy equipment but the store itself was simply the retail branch of AT&T, and everything was AT&T stuff.

My brother used to buy Radio Shack wiring and phone jacks, and string extensions through the house. But we still had to disconnect the phone and carry to the other room, then plug it in again. Some people would just buy extra long wires or handset coiled cables in order to extend their phone use into adjoining rooms. What a mess! :lol:
 
I think there was a conflict of interest between FCC and Sorenson. FCC seemed to be protecting large company like Sorenson since SVRS has the marketing at 80% while FCC not protecting small companies and requesting them to use Caller ID while Sorenson not required to do so. Something very fishy between Sorenson and FCC :hmm:
 
Reba said:
The original "The Phone Store" was in malls, and you could buy equipment but the store itself was simply the retail branch of AT&T, and everything was AT&T stuff.

My brother used to buy Radio Shack wiring and phone jacks, and string extensions through the house. But we still had to disconnect the phone and carry to the other room, then plug it in again. Some people would just buy extra long wires or handset coiled cables in order to extend their phone use into adjoining rooms. What a mess! :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, the ol' Radio Shack. They were bought out by Circuit City and renamed to "The Source by Circuit City" in Canada a few years ago.

I remember the phone stores. They were owned by Bell Canada. From what I know, AT&T owned a large part of Bell Canada, which would explain the monopoly they had in Canada. I think they owned around 35 to 40% of Bell Canada at the time.
 
Sorenson is the largest VRS provider, but i haven't seen the agressive and nasty marketing ploys from them as i have from other providers. They have a VP, so do other companies. But they give it away to those that want it. It enables users to access whichever service they wish to use. And because they are the largest provider in the market, i'm betting they also receive the most scrutiny from the FCC. If not, who's fault is that? If they weren't in the business all of a sudden many deaf people would be harmed from lack of access. If all other companies are as good or better, then why aren't they at the top of the VRS heap? Seems like class envy to me.
 
aslrocks58 said:
i'm betting they also receive the most scrutiny from the FCC. If not, who's fault is that? If they weren't in the business all of a sudden many deaf people would be harmed from lack of access.
Click to expand...

you hit RIGHT and SQUARELY on the nail
god damn that

btw ASLROCKS58 welcome to AD your first post
 
aslrocks58 said:
Seems like class envy to me.
Click to expand...

That's not it at all. It's too much power in the hands of one company. They're a good company for sure, but if the others didn't fight to get FCC to put limits on Sorenson's power then we would have no other choice for VRS. Has everyone suddenly forgotten Sorenson's history?
 
Alfred Sonnenstrahl sent an open letter to FCC concerning possible violations re: Sorenson.

Ryan Commerson's VRS Vlog #6 - approx. 20 min.
RC on blip.tv
 
Back
Top