Purple / SnapVRS / CDVRS files petition againist Sorenson

Yes, I complained about Sorenson. They kept eject from my non-sorenson VP.
My VP200 can make connect to any Video Relay Service. My other brand VP can not connect to Sorenson VRS. That's no fair. Sorenson VRS kept eject my calling from other brand VP.

If, you have only one TV in your home. Your wife or husband wants to watch TV. You have second VP (MVP or OJO or CSDVRS). You want to call excellent Sorenson VRS but still won't work to connect sorenson VRS.
 
"Rival Providers"?? I wonder what Purple, SnapVRS, and ZVRS would feel when Sorenson called them "Rival Providers". I think it is an insult coming from Sorenson. Well, Sorenson wants war with them, I guess.
 
RedWolf said:
"Rival Providers"?? I wonder what Purple, SnapVRS, and ZVRS would feel when Sorenson called them "Rival Providers". I think it is an insult coming from Sorenson. Well, Sorenson wants war with them, I guess.
Click to expand...
That was my reaction too. They could have said "Petitioning Providers" or some other way to refer to them. "Rival Providers" is definitely inappropriate and sounds like they want to cause trouble.

Like SouthFella says, now it is back in the "Rival Providers" zone and we have to see what they say. I wonder if the FCC will add comments too.
 
Well now that we have each sides legal papers that were filed.. Now let's see how it is played out...Judge FCC shall rule soon !!!
 
Sorenson petition state that Caller ID feature is only for relay VRS calls ... not for point to point calls.

I know Sorenson meant Deaf to Deaf but IMO Deaf to Relay Operator is *STILL* a point to point calls with relay service ..

So no difference there and Caller ID feature still should be supported because if Deaf person still want to choose a different relay provider than Sorenson and Caller ID doesn't work.

So IMO it doesn't matter if it a Deaf to Deaf or VRS relay call .. both are point to point ie "video to video" calls.


.
 
My guess is that Point To Point is an FCC term and that is why everybody uses it instead of Deaf to Deaf. The FCC probably uses it to mean any call that doesn't involve a TRS operator.
 
It doesn't matter to me. It's customers' rights to know who is calling. If a deaf person calls to another deaf person, the receiver would want to know who is calling. The receiver would choose whether pick up the phone or answer it. The receiver would never know if there a stalker or a person looking to harass someone. They really need to know who calling. A hearing person would use Caller ID and they would want to know who is calling them. Why not Deaf people to use this feature. I don't think it is fair that Sorenson would classify their numbers to non-Sorenson phone numbers and not show Caller ID at all. They really need to do Caller ID no matter what, either from VI (video interpreter) or from VP to VP (or MVP), they really need to work together. It would do the same as Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T those did showed Caller ID no matter what phone company they calling from. I really don't think it is fair to block Caller ID from any VRS no matter what. Sorenson probably making excuses to get out of trouble.

Etoile, I would agree with you. If they don't want to listen to us or don't want to listen to me by telling them, "They need to get along! Work together and let do it by helping the deaf community!" I guess my message did not come across to any of those VRS which it is very disappointing. If Sorenson want to insult to those VRS, then Sorenson is asking for war with them. Very disappointing, damn those VRS, very disappointing....:thumbd:
 
RedWolf said:
It doesn't matter to me. It's customers' rights to know who is calling. If a deaf person calls to another deaf person, the receiver would want to know who is calling. The receiver would choose whether pick up the phone or answer it. The receiver would never know if there a stalker or a person looking to harass someone. They really need to know who calling. A hearing person would use Caller ID and they would want to know who is calling them. Why not Deaf people to use this feature.
Click to expand...
Hearing people have to pay for Caller ID though. It's not free. So I disagree very strongly that it is "rights" to know who is calling. Of course deaf people deserve to have the option AVAILABLE but it is not a right. Especially not for free. Hearing people have to pay for Caller ID, we do not have it at my house, my wife doesn't want to pay for it. It should be available to deaf users but it is not a right.
 
Etoile said:
My guess is that Point To Point is an FCC term and that is why everybody uses it instead of Deaf to Deaf. The FCC probably uses it to mean any call that doesn't involve a TRS operator.
Click to expand...


But the question is ....

Are Sorenson breaking a rule if a Deaf user use VP200 and call SnapVRS but SnapVRS operator cannot see the Caller ID from VP200?


Calling Purple or SnapVRS or CDVRS still involes TRS relay and yet they are blocked access to VP200 Caller ID function when Deaf user use it to make relay call with Sorenson's device with other reply provider.

Follow what I am saying?


And it sound like to me that Sorenson said that since they claim to have VP out first "VP100" so the standard should be set by Sorenson not by other providers and other providers need to follow Sorsenson's standard that they set because they had it out first years ago.




.
 
TechBill said:
But the question is ....

Are Sorenson breaking a rule if a Deaf user use VP200 and call SnapVRS but SnapVRS operator cannot see the Caller ID from VP200?


Calling Purple or SnapVRS or CDVRS still involes TRS relay and yet they are blocked access to VP200 Caller ID function when Deaf user use it to make relay call with Sorenson's device with other reply provider.

Follow what I am saying?


And it sound like to me that Sorenson said that since they claim to have VP out first "VP100" so the standard should be set by Sorenson not by other providers and other providers need to follow Sorsenson's standard that they set because they had it out first years ago.




.
Click to expand...

Oh yes I follow you completely! :)

I just think that the legal documents from both sides use "Point to Point" because that is what FCC calls it. Obviously any call a VP user makes is technically point to point, you cannot call a regular phone with a VP, it doesn't work that way! But they have to differentiate between "calls involving TRS operator" and "calls not involving TRS operator" so they gave it the name Point to Point when really it should be Deaf to Deaf.

I think both sides have a good argument. Which means they both have good lawyers. That's why FCC has judges to figure it out instead of me! :shock:
 
Yes, this is true also hearing people DO have choice refusing displaying caller ID on other end as well. Most of the time telemarketer disable the caller ID because they do not want to be traced back. That disabling feature is also NOT FREE either.
"Rights" is just a crap because one person wants rights to not disclose the information, while other person wants the rights to know who, both wants the rights of privacy so they both cancelled each other rights, making the "Rights" moot point.
I wouldn't care much for caller ID.

Etoile said:
Hearing people have to pay for Caller ID though. It's not free. So I disagree very strongly that it is "rights" to know who is calling. Of course deaf people deserve to have the option AVAILABLE but it is not a right. Especially not for free. Hearing people have to pay for Caller ID, we do not have it at my house, my wife doesn't want to pay for it. It should be available to deaf users but it is not a right.
Click to expand...
 
A call does not have to be shown to the other party . That is not a " right" . Only the TRS have to see where the call came from for 911 purposes. Sorenson is simply stating they have tried to get the " rivals" to come to a common agreement. Now the " rivals" want to force the hand on Sorenson. This looks like the little companies crying and jealous of big ole Sorenson.. FCC will make a ruling on the accusation soon.

I admire Sorenson for being the pioneer and providing the hearing loss community with another choice in communication methods...The "rivals" just need to stop crying in the proverbial sandbox and move on.
 
Huh? I already called sorenson to make appt for the installer to my place. So, now what? Should I dump sorenson for purple/VRS/CDVRS?

Oh, boy, I will stay with sorenson.

Peace
 
yagazn said:
Huh? I already called sorenson to make appt for the installer to my place. So, now what? Should I dump sorenson for purple/VRS/CDVRS?

Oh, boy, I will stay with sorenson.

Peace
Click to expand...

You can have both! sorenson vp200 and MVP! you can send and receive calls seperately on either one on same home network using seperate 10 digit numbers.
 
Back
Top