One phone number each IP address

add note;

It didn't not say about Purple, but it similar the link as proof that Purple did say about more than one number provider.
 
JClarke said:
Netbook doesn't need any port forwarding and it is just a laptop - behaves like a laptop.
Click to expand...

That was not what I asked, or meant. I have Sorenson as default with one ten digit number, and a separate Purple 10 dihgit number that I use with P3 software. Often used on the same network (home), or same IP address. Is Sorenson saying that I can't do that?
 
dkf747 said:
That was not what I asked, or meant. I have Sorenson as default with one ten digit number, and a separate Purple 10 dihgit number that I use with P3 software. Often used on the same network (home), or same IP address. Is Sorenson saying that I can't do that?
Click to expand...

It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting
 
zerodog said:
It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting
Click to expand...

I re-read the petition. It asks for two things:

1. One 10 digit number per device

2. One 10 digit number (and one provider) per IP address.

The first makes sense, That's the same as cell phone. The second, however, has me concerned for how a wireless VP can work since it could be used on various IP addresses. Your post mentions the MAC Address. That's the first time that I have heard that it uses the MAC address to identify the correct videophone. If that is true then why does Sorenson need to petition for either of the two issues above?

It seems that this petiton is more about stopping installers from messing up other company's VP than about the above two issues. In other words, shame to other provider's installers for doing that. Which providers, other than Sorenson and Purple, are sending out installers?
 
Better check on OSI layer, see what happens to MAC ID when packets traveling though the Internet.

zerodog said:
It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting
Click to expand...
 
look- as for having only one vp number per device- I kinda understand that. But being in the deaf world, we are on the frontier breaking rules that the hearing has created and exploring the possibilities for the future. Who knows? some day the hearing would adopt OUR standards. As for the other rule for one device per IP address, IT DOES NOT SIMPLIFY THINGS! It seems to be a infringement of our personal rights of freedom. For example, Currently there is NO WAY to be able to have more then one videophone in different rooms and be able to call and answer from any videophone. The deaf does not have the freedom to have a "phone in every room" like hearing can. That is what is so cool about purple. I can have vp200 in living room and then have MVP in kitchen. I can't hear the ring in kitchen for vp200, and due to way house is constructed, can't see flasher either. Or if i need to go to garage and work there I can bring MVP with me to make sure I don't miss out on a important call or call out on help for repairs etc etc etc. I consider the vp200 as a land line phone and MVP a phone i can use anywhere in house. pardon my language ladies and gents- screw Sorenson petition. it hinders more then it helps.
 
radioman said:
look- as for having only one vp number per device- I kinda understand that. But being in the deaf world, we are on the frontier breaking rules that the hearing has created and exploring the possibilities for the future. Who knows? some day the hearing would adopt OUR standards. As for the other rule for one device per IP address, IT DOES NOT SIMPLIFY THINGS! It seems to be a infringement of our personal rights of freedom. For example, Currently there is NO WAY to be able to have more then one videophone in different rooms and be able to call and answer from any videophone. The deaf does not have the freedom to have a "phone in every room" like hearing can. That is what is so cool about purple. I can have vp200 in living room and then have MVP in kitchen. I can't hear the ring in kitchen for vp200, and due to way house is constructed, can't see flasher either. Or if i need to go to garage and work there I can bring MVP with me to make sure I don't miss out on a important call or call out on help for repairs etc etc etc. I consider the vp200 as a land line phone and MVP a phone i can use anywhere in house. pardon my language ladies and gents- screw Sorenson petition. it hinders more then it helps.
Click to expand...

I agree. Should be one phone number for any brand name of videophone in every room like hearing s phone sets. I dislike too many different 10-digital numbers for different VPs and webcam.
 
personally, i wish they reword it to "one device per port" instead of "IP Address". that way they can specfic the port for each phone number, and each device will ring whatever is being dialed. that would make sense, as if you call 911 on that device, its expected you will get 911 on that device.

and to be honest, i am a bit annoyed that we havent reached to the solution where one phone number will ring all the device or something like that. what happened to that?
 
I read the petition

IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it.

Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because there are many deaf whom are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still.

So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."
 
Last edited:
TechBill said:
I read the petition

IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it.

Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because millions of deaf are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still.

So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."
Click to expand...

Millions of deaf ?
 
TechBill said:
I read the petition

IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it.

Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because there are many deaf whom are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still.

So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."
Click to expand...

Haha - this is pretty stupid for sorenson to do this. :roll:
 
TechBill said:
So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."
Click to expand...

Soresnon not own h323 poor picture quaility

soresnon use own video codec

petition talk one public IP address per provider
 
I do not understand why point about the reason to resolve issue because of H.323.

Sorenson have their own compress, do your home work and compare to another VRS expect Viable. Viable did their own compress and did good job...

You can look at Sorenson Video Delivery Network, The Platform for Video Content & Encoding and that software that use on videophone in different way.

Again. H.323 have nothing do with it but Sorenson accept any video such as media for example; webcam to device that built for videophone.

Negative part is compress that MVP is boo... P3 software did good job than MVP...
 
Back
Top