Purple upset FCC says 'NO'

zerodog

zerodog

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
I happen walk around the blog but somewhat it already close and so I make one for myrself so it can answer or discuss.

Again, I do not care what its 'think' tells me. I look the action and see the whine. I couldn't believe that Kelby whining about No Deaf Conference Calls.

I am glad that FCC says no because if you want one and you gotta to pay for it. If you want to develop one, find a investor and not the FCC.

FCC is base on TRS funds but where says about DEAF Conference calls. I found its lame and embrassing to have someone is whining and disappoint that only way to get is hearing person use Deaf Conference that doesn't sound like a access communicate with FCC's TRS fund for that?

I found shame and silly for Kelby make VLog about it.

here again the link...

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » No Deaf Conference Calls

What more interesting, the Purple say NO NO about toll free numbers as 10 digit numbers. I found that Purple is going whining after Nov 12 because Purple can't get the connection.
 
You (zerodog) and qwerty123 are the only ones that whine all the times about the VRS services and FCC etc all the times in the AD forum.

(shaking head)
 
I don't think Kelby was whining at all. I think he was saying that FCC is making unfair decision about allowing deaf people to have conference calls. For example: If deaf business owners want to have a video conference calls, FCC says if you want to have a video conference call, you must have hearing person to be involved in the conference call. If there is no hearing business owner in the conference call, FCC won't pay for it. Now, deaf business owners would have look elsewhere to find a hearing business owner to be placed in the conference call. The deaf business owners only want to have deaf people to discuss about the business, not the hearing people. It would be unfair to those deaf business owners who would have to force.

zerodog, I know you agree with FCC because you were concerned about TRS fund but what about deaf business owners who want to work together, discuss about business future, or discuss about merging with 2 businesses? We all concerned about businesses' future here in America, even small businesses. If there will be a lot of large businesses here in America, what will happen to small businesses? The small businesses might not go to grow because of the consumers kept going to the large businesses. That is why small businesses are important for conference calls to have deaf small business owners to have video conference calls. Maybe that's why you never thought about small business owners who wanted to grow their business to a larger corporations in America. That's what wrong in America when economy went so bad, large or small business starting to close or starting to layoff employees, which the all time numbers of unemployed is high. It will stay high for who know how long this will going to last.

You got to think about deaf business owners first before you can start thinking Purple are actually whining which they are not. Purple just need to communicate FCC and ask for clarification on the rules made by FCC and ask why FCC won't allow deaf callers to make video conference unless only hearing caller is in the video conference call. I don't see Kelby whining at all, he just thought FCC was being unfair and FCC wasn't clear about the rules they made.

Suppose, FCC made a decision that all consumers who owns videophone (any videophone, even MVP) must pay for the call. Now, how would VRS would feel about this and what about the VRS business in the future? If FCC stopped paying TRS fund to all VRS, VRS would be forced to make you pay for the calls yourself which it would be very expensive for everyone. Do you think that is fair for you? I know you would not feel fair at all.

I am going to stop ranting my mind here and let you speak your mind. LOL
 
RedWolf said:
I don't think Kelby was whining at all. I think he was saying that FCC is making unfair decision about allowing deaf people to have conference calls. For example: If deaf business owners want to have a video conference calls, FCC says if you want to have a video conference call, you must have hearing person to be involved in the conference call. If there is no hearing business owner in the conference call, FCC won't pay for it. Now, deaf business owners would have look elsewhere to find a hearing business owner to be placed in the conference call. The deaf business owners only want to have deaf people to discuss about the business, not the hearing people. It would be unfair to those deaf business owners who would have to force.

zerodog, I know you agree with FCC because you were concerned about TRS fund but what about deaf business owners who want to work together, discuss about business future, or discuss about merging with 2 businesses? We all concerned about businesses' future here in America, even small businesses. If there will be a lot of large businesses here in America, what will happen to small businesses? The small businesses might not go to grow because of the consumers kept going to the large businesses. That is why small businesses are important for conference calls to have deaf small business owners to have video conference calls. Maybe that's why you never thought about small business owners who wanted to grow their business to a larger corporations in America. That's what wrong in America when economy went so bad, large or small business starting to close or starting to layoff employees, which the all time numbers of unemployed is high. It will stay high for who know how long this will going to last.

You got to think about deaf business owners first before you can start thinking Purple are actually whining which they are not. Purple just need to communicate FCC and ask for clarification on the rules made by FCC and ask why FCC won't allow deaf callers to make video conference unless only hearing caller is in the video conference call. I don't see Kelby whining at all, he just thought FCC was being unfair and FCC wasn't clear about the rules they made.

Suppose, FCC made a decision that all consumers who owns videophone (any videophone, even MVP) must pay for the call. Now, how would VRS would feel about this and what about the VRS business in the future? If FCC stopped paying TRS fund to all VRS, VRS would be forced to make you pay for the calls yourself which it would be very expensive for everyone. Do you think that is fair for you? I know you would not feel fair at all.

I am going to stop ranting my mind here and let you speak your mind. LOL
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying but the way he talk sound like.. I understand what he is says on VLog.

I don't mind pay the service as to have that feature. So Purple can make some profit to develop instead depend on FCC. FCC is good for interpreter to service.. but for Deaf to Deaf, why can't we just simple pay service? Know what I am saying
 
web730 said:
You (zerodog) and qwerty123 are the only ones that whine all the times about the VRS services and FCC etc all the times in the AD forum.

(shaking head)
Click to expand...

The one and the same. :roll:
 
In state VR agency, I wont name one. There is one Deaf person who hold his senior managerial position that uses the deaf to deaf conference calls and uses VRS to conduct their business with their Deaf VR counselors.

Now, FCC had made a rule that deaf-deaf conference calls is not allowed and what would VR do with the Deaf person now? Give pink slip and leave VR, demote to a lower position with lower pay? If FCC rule stands and the VR will have to hire a hearing person to do the conference call with Deaf people via VRS.

I believe FCC might have unknowingly broken the ADA law and Purple has filed an appeal to FCC board of directors.
 
I am confused because all the time I thought VP to VP is free in exchange to keep call VRS. So FCC can pay for interpreters but why FCC should pay deaf to deaf when it's free? Sorenson and purple are same policy? What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature
 
deafaussie said:
In state VR agency, I wont name one. There is one Deaf person who hold his senior managerial position that uses the deaf to deaf conference calls and uses VRS to conduct their business with their Deaf VR counselors.

Now, FCC had made a rule that deaf-deaf conference calls is not allowed and what would VR do with the Deaf person now? Give pink slip and leave VR, demote to a lower position with lower pay? If FCC rule stands and the VR will have to hire a hearing person to do the conference call with Deaf people via VRS.

I believe FCC might have unknowingly broken the ADA law and Purple has filed an appeal to FCC board of directors.
Click to expand...
I think FCC did the right thing because they feel when hearing conference to hearing conternce, fcc dont pay it. its same apply to deaf conference to deaf conference. I don't see why purple is anal over this.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
I am confused because all the time I thought VP to VP is free in exchange to keep call VRS. So FCC can pay for interpreters but why FCC should pay deaf to deaf when it's free? Sorenson and purple are same policy? What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature
Click to expand...

MVP feature includes multi-party video conference calls with up to people at once.

I like multi-party video conference like ooVoo, SigitSpeed, Skype, etc... but should pay monthly service.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
I am confused because all the time I thought VP to VP is free in exchange to keep call VRS. So FCC can pay for interpreters but why FCC should pay deaf to deaf when it's free? Sorenson and purple are same policy? What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature
Click to expand...

I agree with DefMatrixense. We all deaf people can use the deaf conference without any VRS help. So tell us how can we benefit from VRS for the Deaf Conference.
 
I haven't tried ooVoo yet, but I did tried Camfrog. Camfrog did charge them premium membership if they wanted to have multiple screen show on screen. But if they are not premium member, then they are stuck with only one screen.

Camfrog is only for webcamming, but what about all VP? Is all VP that does only webcam as well? I don't know how they would make all VP into webcam but I believe VP are separate from webcam. I know people who already have P3 notebook already have webcam, but technology is different in some way. I am surprised in some way because they can work both webcam and all VP to work together.

Now, when it comes to video conferencing, this is going to be interesting scenario between Purple and FCC. All we have to do is wait and see how it ends. If FCC still says no, then we might not going to see video conferencing in any of your MVP after all. This would be pretty bad for all deaf business owners out there in the deaf communities. :(
 
"Deaf to deaf" VP calls for more than 2 people is just NOT technically possible these days. There is no "conference calling" VP feature built in to any of the VPs or webcams used by most deaf people today. So deaf conference calling is like asking people in the 1900's to do telephone conference calling - it probably just didn't exist, and may have been extremely expensive when it did first come out for hearing people. Also, all the equipment isn't standardized - different VPs with different systems and different protocols. Not going to work.

Multi-point VP calls are extremely bandwidth intensive and not all that mature. The telephone system is very mature and stable, so a conference call can be done reliably. Everyone uses a VP interpreter and the telephone system. That's equal to hearing people. Why should deaf people not be equal to hearing people?
 
Dennis said:
"Deaf to deaf" VP calls for more than 2 people is just NOT technically possible these days. There is no "conference calling" VP feature built in to any of the VPs or webcams used by most deaf people today. So deaf conference calling is like asking people in the 1900's to do telephone conference calling - it probably just didn't exist, and may have been extremely expensive when it did first come out for hearing people. Also, all the equipment isn't standardized - different VPs with different systems and different protocols. Not going to work.

Multi-point VP calls are extremely bandwidth intensive and not all that mature. The telephone system is very mature and stable, so a conference call can be done reliably. Everyone uses a VP interpreter and the telephone system. That's equal to hearing people. Why should deaf people not be equal to hearing people?
Click to expand...



Actually it possible and there are several vendors out there that offer conference video callings but most sites you had to pay for it.

There is one free site called Tokbox and it support video group conference calls. Website is TokBox - Free Video Chat and Video Messaging Last time I use it it was free but I haven't use it in a whle so I don't know if still free.

Video calling is not that bandwidth intensive as you may think and you could get by with only 512kb per video which is 256kb up and 256kb down on DSL you should be able to recieve and send about 4 videos calls but it is CPU intensive so low end computer may not be able to decompress or decode more than one video at a time so video conference call require a high-end computer because video calls are compressed and uncompressed which require lots of CPU cycles.


.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
I think FCC did the right thing because they feel when hearing conference to hearing conternce, fcc dont pay it. its same apply to deaf conference to deaf conference. I don't see why purple is anal over this.
Click to expand...
:gpost:

web730 said:
You (zerodog) and qwerty123 are the only ones that whine all the times about the VRS services and FCC etc all the times in the AD forum. (shaking head)
Click to expand...
:orly:

funny no consumer complaint at fcc register on confernce call
 
Chevy57 said:
MVP feature includes multi-party video conference calls with up to people at once.

I like multi-party video conference like ooVoo, SigitSpeed, Skype, etc... but should pay monthly service.
Click to expand...

What about pay service per year? Similar as anti-virus pay 50 dollar per year to improve the service. Know what I am saying?

I know it will going to charge us to use Sorenson or the Purple to use extra feature that nothing relate between Deaf and Hearing. More of Deaf and Deaf because of bandwidth on their service or the memories server to handle mulit-call


How much do you think that reasonable to pay? Just out of curious and I am not running any business of those feature :giggle:

Just curious
 
web730 said:
You (zerodog) and qwerty123 are the only ones that whine all the times about the VRS services and FCC etc all the times in the AD forum.

(shaking head)
Click to expand...

I need to whining about VRS because I need that service.. I can't live without VRS :roll: So you should whine too.
 
dkf747 said:
I think that's because most don't understand what we're supposed to complain about. Is this a feature that is commonly used?
Click to expand...

huh? kelby brick vlog explain how to file there

Purple installers like Nathan, Chevy57 cant file there bec conflict interest
 
Back
Top