Purple upset FCC says 'NO'

RedWolf said:
Among other things, Purple asks the Commission to adopt formal rules “that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call,” and to confirm the lawfulness of certain outreach and marketing practices." Now, what this mean is Purple is petitioning to clarify the rules made by FCC which it states, "that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call," This was under the law under section 225 under Communication Acts.
Click to expand...

Why do Deaf to Deaf to Deaf, etc... calls need VRS at all, or why do they need reimbursement?


Imagine this scenario: If this continues with this new change with the new law in the future made by FCC, we might not have deaf to deaf calls anymore because of the new law which requires hearing to deaf call only (through VRS).
Click to expand...

:confused: Deaf to Deaf calls do not need VRS! How would these calls be at risk?
 
dkf747 said:
Why do Deaf to Deaf to Deaf, etc... calls need VRS at all, or why do they need reimbursement?




:confused: Deaf to Deaf calls do not need VRS! How would these calls be at risk?
Click to expand...

You want multi-party video conference without VRS. but H.323 multi-party video conference cost is very expensive for business.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature
Click to expand...
In context of Purple's petition, a multi-party conference call is done via VRS.

An example of a VRS multi-party conference call; A deaf person would call a special number and be connected to a VRS agent. This VRS agent would then interpret the conference call. Another Deaf person calls the same number and gets his/her own VRS agent handling the same conference call. Add other Deaf people, hearing people to the conference call, etc. and we have a multi-party conference call, with Deaf participants having their own VRS agents.

This is different than software/hardware based applications that people can use to make video conference calls and see everybody at once. Which approach is convenient? Which approach is expensive and/or impractical? Is it that multi-party conference calling via VRS truly functionally equivalent? I'm not sure at this point.
 
qwerty123 said:
The TRS Fund is administered by the National Exchange Carriers Association (“NECA”). In the event the FCC decides not to reconsider the Company’s petition for rulemaking or otherwise decides not to permit reimbursement for multi-party calls that do not include a hearing person, and the Company’s efforts to appeal the Order are unsuccessful, the Company will no longer be reimbursed by NECA for such calls. The Company is in the process of determining what portion of its receipts from NECA are attributable to multi-party calls not involving a hearing person and what impact the FCC’s ruling, if upheld, would have on the financial statements of the Company. The inability to collect reimbursement for such multi-party calls would reduce the Company’s revenue and cash flow and the Company believes it would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.
Click to expand...
That was quite a find. Never thought to look through 8-K filings.
 
A small disclaimer; I do not work in the relay industry. I am a VRS consumer, however, and use ZVRS.

While I am not sold in the entirety of Purple's latest filings advocating for multi-party VRS calling, I would suggest that the FCC would benefit greatly by having the issue opened for public comment and discussion.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
I disagreed with this. It's not fair to hearing people because you can see to other deaf person via VIDEO.
Click to expand...

No, I was not talking about hearing people who using conference call. I am talking about deaf owners who talk with other deaf owners in a deaf conference call. If deaf owners talk to other deaf owners, FCC told them must have hearing person in the conference call, then deaf owners would groan about it and felt FCC forced them to look for a hearing person to be in the conference call. No matter how many deaf owners, maybe 3 deaf owners got into a conference call, then FCC would tell them, "No conference call unless a hearing person is in the conference call." Then all 3 deaf owners would be forced to look for another hearing caller to be in the call. Or they would be forced to call them invididually which it mean one deaf owner would have to call one owner then when they are done talking then the owner would have to call another owner then when done, then would have to go call back to the first owner. This is really waste of time and money for the deaf owners to make businesses with other deaf owners which I states in my old post by saying this is pretty bad for deaf owners in the deaf communities.
 
Chevy57 said:
You want multi-party video conference without VRS. but H.323 multi-party video conference cost is very expensive for business.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can be very expensive but it really worth their money to have this multi conference cost to them. If business owners have enough money to run their business, I am sure they can afford to pay for it with their own pocket money.
 
RedWolf said:
No, I was not talking about hearing people who using conference call. I am talking about deaf owners who talk with other deaf owners in a deaf conference call. If deaf owners talk to other deaf owners, FCC told them must have hearing person in the conference call, then deaf owners would groan about it and felt FCC forced them to look for a hearing person to be in the conference call. No matter how many deaf owners, maybe 3 deaf owners got into a conference call, then FCC would tell them, "No conference call unless a hearing person is in the conference call." Then all 3 deaf owners would be forced to look for another hearing caller to be in the call. Or they would be forced to call them invididually which it mean one deaf owner would have to call one owner then when they are done talking then the owner would have to call another owner then when done, then would have to go call back to the first owner. This is really waste of time and money for the deaf owners to make businesses with other deaf owners which I states in my old post by saying this is pretty bad for deaf owners in the deaf communities.
Click to expand...
Thats what I answered your question. Deaf owners should have to pay thier own pockets if they want deaf to deaf confence. It's not fair to hearing people to pay. That's why FCC decided against it.
 
RedWolf said:
Yes, it can be very expensive but it really worth their money to have this multi conference cost to them. If business owners have enough money to run their business, I am sure they can afford to pay for it with their own pocket money.
Click to expand...

If not, don't get a video conference at all period.
 
pandaatv36 said:
Deaf Aussie and Red Wolf... I believe Qwerty is stating that Sorenson does have conference calls, but using RELAY. Qwerty didn't say its in VP200. I can be wrong but I know right at this moment that VP200 doesn't have conference capability, maybe in the near future who knows.

So... Red Wolf... I await your response on the Section 255 of Communication Act.
Click to expand...

pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. For example: In the future, FCC does have the authorities and would tell all VRS to shut down, which it would make them go out of business. How this will affect all deaf callers who uses VP?
 
RedWolf said:
pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. For example: In the future, FCC does have the authorities and would tell all VRS to shut down, which it would make them go out of business. How this will affect all deaf callers who uses VP?
Click to expand...
This communication Act that has do with deaf people who can't HEAR anything. Video conference is a different because deaf people who can SEE anything which is not applied Communication Act.
 
RedWolf said:
pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. For example: In the future, FCC does have the authorities and would tell all VRS to shut down, which it would make them go out of business. How this will affect all deaf callers who uses VP?
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't because taxpayers pay to help people with disabilities. You can see the paycheck, phone bill, or other bill that shows relay service fund and that people have to pay like 3 or 7 cents per month.
 
DefMATRIXense said:
This communication Act that has do with deaf people who can't HEAR anything. Video conference is a different because deaf people who can SEE anything which is not applied Communication Act.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but FCC are following the old written law which they were not caught up with the new technology today. If you can read his older blog, read this:

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » FCC Black Hole of Rules

It can apply to anyone, whether it is telephone companies, cable companies, fax companies, etc, this would impact all deaf communities. FCC have old rules and they have not updated their rules on so many issues. FCC is having a hard time to catch up with new growing technologies of today such as saving the environments, new energy-saving devices, new mobile product such as mobile routers, MVP and many other new technologies. But FCC still stuck with the old rules that haven't evolved with the new technologies of today. Communication Acts were written in 1996 which it is pretty old but maybe they need to update their rules?
 
DefMATRIXense said:
No, they wouldn't because taxpayers pay to help people with disabilities. You can see the paycheck, phone bill, or other bill that shows relay service fund and that people have to pay like 3 or 7 cents per month.
Click to expand...

I have read and understand you that but what if they cut off the relay service fund? Then there wouldn't be relay service at all, right?

Here another vlog made by Kelby, I think it would make me very concern. If I was in Kelby's shoes, I would be concerned and protecting deaf people's rights....FCC need to be educated about the VRS. View this video below...

http://www.purple.us/blog/2009/09/petition-for-rules-clarification/
 
Last edited:
RedWolf said:
I have read and understand you that but what if they cut off the relay service fund? Then there wouldn't be relay service at all, right?

Here another vlog made by Kelby, I think it would make me very concern. If I was in Kelby's shoes, I would be concerned and protecting deaf people's rights....FCC need to be educated about the VRS. View this video below...

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » Petition for Rules Clarification
Click to expand...
No this is not what Kelby talking about vrs. He was talking about video conference deaf to deaf. It has nothing do with vrs.

Edit: wrong video lol he is asking for rules clarification. Dumb me!! Lol
 
RedWolf said:
Exactly, but FCC are following the old written law which they were not caught up with the new technology today. If you can read his older blog, read this:

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » FCC Black Hole of Rules

It can apply to anyone, whether it is telephone companies, cable companies, fax companies, etc, this would impact all deaf communities. FCC have old rules and they have not updated their rules on so many issues. FCC is having a hard time to catch up with new growing technologies of today such as saving the environments, new energy-saving devices, new mobile product such as mobile routers, MVP and many other new technologies. But FCC still stuck with the old rules that haven't evolved with the new technologies of today. Communication Acts were written in 1996 which it is pretty old but maybe they need to update their rules?
Click to expand...
I agree with you but purple is fighting FCC over video conference deaf to deaf not deaf to hearing. Have u notice why sorenson and other didn't say or support purple because they are against it and not necessary waste money. Wise choice!!!
 
DefMATRIXense said:
No this is not what Kelby talking about vrs. He was talking about video conference deaf to deaf. It has nothing do with vrs.
Click to expand...

I know that, but this is about FCC vs. all VRS. This is about how FCC works with all VRS, telephone companies, cable companies and many other companies. This is recent article, check this out and see what FCC been doing lately:

Comcast: FCC Action Unlawful, Should Be Reversed - Reviews by PC Magazine

It already happened to Comcast! This could happen to Roadrunner, Brighthouse, Timer Warner Cable, and many more others which affect them huge.

Since FCC already got their new boss, Julius Genachowski, everything gotten changed and now they are very strict to the law and currently enforcing every law. Even old law that were written in 1932. Is Julius got educated about what is VRS means to him/her? Maybe Julius don't know what is VRS meant? FCC had gotten really strict lately.
 
Back
Top