Purple upset FCC says 'NO'

IloveVP said:
What is the E-VRS?
Click to expand...

more of... "E-VRS Experts"

People on this thread who claims they know it all on VRS services. There's a lot of misinformation in this thread, so I skipped it all.
 
I think we are getting way off topic here. We are talking about Purple not ZVRS. :)
 
RedWolf said:
I think we are getting way off topic here. We are talking about Purple not ZVRS. :)
Click to expand...

Yea, I seen a few different off-topics, We're talking about Purple, pls create topic for other stuff!.

Purple have blue background, I like and see better.
 
zerodog said:
The SignMail that TRS didn't pay for it. Sorenson paid the Video Center or the SignMail and get yourself spank!
Click to expand...

me point out again

zerodog, fcc/neca pay for true nonmanufactured relay calls.
if hearie call deaf thru vrs and leave message like signmail or videomail, fcc/neca pay the minutes therefore that good revenue for vrs providers

me think not fcc will allow purple has all deaf confrence call
not a true relay call
sorry purple upset
 
(I know we are talking about Purple but just until now I just found out new information)
Now, this is interesting....Since FCC said no deaf conference call for Purple....then why ZVRS bringing in new software called "Z4". If you can see this video at 3:45, the guy said you can use 2 or 3 people at the same time which it can be used for conference call.

Now, why ZVRS are allowed to use conference calls but Purple cannot use the conference calls? I think FCC is confused about the rules or something...That is why Purple is requesting clarification about the rules made by FCC.

Here is the video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f9OW4-2G-M]YouTube - Videophone Solutions: Z-Ojo, Z-150, Z4[/ame]
 
RedWolf said:
(I know we are talking about Purple but just until now I just found out new information)
Now, this is interesting....Since FCC said no deaf conference call for Purple....then why ZVRS bringing in new software called "Z4". If you can see this video at 3:45, the guy said you can use 2 or 3 people at the same time which it can be used for conference call.

Now, why ZVRS are allowed to use conference calls but Purple cannot use the conference calls? I think FCC is confused about the rules or something...That is why Purple is requesting clarification about the rules made by FCC.
Click to expand...

The ZVRS can do this without have FCC approved this. ZVRS paid that software feature themselves to have 2 or 3 calls at same time.

Meanwhile that Purple is asking FCC to paid the feature such as have more than one caller at same time without interpreter. FCC decline because again and again.

Deaf doesn't need interpreter to Deaf unless it do with CID to person who doesn't understand sign language but home sign or gesture sign. However; no one mention or ask for one.

Again, ZVRS or another VRS have like that kind feature. It is FEATURE that not paid by TRS fund.
 
I personally disagree. Why use taxpayers money to finance deaf2deaf?

It should come from the deaf consumers theirselves. May as well let hearing people have free phone calls as well!!!
 
I think it is important that deaf to deaf conference should be same price as hearing to hearing conference. Deaf people should not have to pay MORE because of their disabilities. They can't help it they can't pick something cheaper because they can't hear. I got sick and tired of paying more money for cellphones for the deaf when hearing people can get their cellphone for cheap. My disability is eating away my budget.

But I don't think it should be free. Now, for deaf to hearing, well we need someone to translate what they are saying.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I think it is important that deaf to deaf conference should be same price as hearing to hearing conference. Deaf people should not have to pay MORE because of their disabilities. They can't help it they can't pick something cheaper because they can't hear. I got sick and tired of paying more money for cellphones for the deaf when hearing people can get their cellphone for cheap. My disability is eating away my budget.

But I don't think it should be free. Now, for deaf to hearing, well we need someone to translate what they are saying.
Click to expand...

I agree. We should at least be able to get a tax deduction for buying/paying services for the deaf. Look at the blind. They get a lower tax bracket with a little box they can check at the top of 1040 form.
 
Sure they need em for business conference, its really sad that they want to get direct money from FCC where they could use it as tax write off for business expenses instead. This argument is really moot.

I couldn't see how TRS (Telecommunication ***RELAY*** Service) related to multi-Deaf parties conference calls where there is no relay is involved. Check the bold word with 6 asteriks once again.

This is truly embarassement to Deaf community because they are acting like demanding babies who wanted everything for free PLUS more, how do you expect hearing people look at us when we demand too much?

WAKE UP! How many countries on this planet offers free, I mean FREE relay service to Deaf people assisting them bridging communication with Hearing people? I know you can answer this question, so think about it.

I, myself am very grateful that I have the ability to communicate with my hearing parties and want to continue enjoy the services (TRS) whenever I want and need to.

Anyway, I'm back and eating popcorn and drinkin coke and up to you want to continue fighting over and demanding needlessly OR be constructive and work toward bridging communication between Hearing and Deaf and allow Hearing people to be part of it instead of providing freebies.

Mr. Averythest said:
I personally disagree. Why use taxpayers money to finance deaf2deaf?

It should come from the deaf consumers theirselves. May as well let hearing people have free phone calls as well!!!
Click to expand...
 
For the record, I wrote the FCC my opinion on this.

AND... That little box for the blind... That came from the NFB - National Federation of the Blind. NAD is such a pussy when it comes to these issues.
 
diehardbiker said:
This is truly embarassement to Deaf community because they are acting like demanding babies who wanted everything for free PLUS more, how do you expect hearing people look at us when we demand too much?

I, myself am very grateful that I have the ability to communicate with my hearing parties and want to continue enjoy the services (TRS) whenever I want and need to.
Click to expand...

What do you mean about embarrassing to a deaf community? It is a common that they have three to five regular telephones in their house. Most deafies usually have one videophone. I think that two or three videophones are good enough - first one would be in living room, a 2nd one would be in the office room, and another one is in the basement in case you are working on your project or do the laundry work. Unfortunately, it is required to have a separate number for each videophone - that's really insane.

Surely, we depend on TRS for our jobs and meet our needs. Thanks to many TRS. It is just simple.
 
Whats this thread is talking about?

webexplorer said:
What do you mean about embarrassing to a deaf community? It is a common that they have three to five regular telephones in their house. Most deafies usually have one videophone. I think that two or three videophones are good enough - first one would be in living room, a 2nd one would be in the office room, and another one is in the basement in case you are working on your project or do the laundry work. Unfortunately, it is required to have a separate number for each videophone - that's really insane.

Surely, we depend on TRS for our jobs and meet our needs. Thanks to many TRS. It is just simple.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

you mean this

his name is public!
 
Nathan said:
Again, you fail to provide us a link to the SOURCE, not a download link. I am not downloading this shit.
Click to expand...

I just only wanted to explain about Adobe pdf format

A pdf file is as good as any web content sources.

It easier workers to scan document in pdf formats and post it rather than trying to convert document into a web page because it easier to teach workers to scan documents than it is to teach workers to create web pages :D

Also it preserve the genius of the document because if it was scanned into pdf format we know it had not been modified in any way than it is when coverted into a web page which need to be modifited to be displayed as a web page.

Just about all State or Federal or Corperation etc now days prefer all their document to be in pdf format if it going to be available online for public viewing.

You can view all pdf document directly if you have the pdf plugin on your browser. You can get it at Adobe


.
 
Nathan said:
Again, you fail to provide us a link to the SOURCE, not a download link. I am not downloading this shit.
Click to expand...

You won't work PDF link?

Now this link is:

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
(916)273-9281 Videophone
Attention: Chairman Julius Genachowski,
Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Commissioner Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker
Re: CG Docket 03-123

November 2, 2009

Dear Commissioners :
I am writing to you in support of the Application for Review filed by the Consumer
Groups on October 19, 2009 regarding the September 18, 2009 FCC Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) Order on multi-party conference calls
which may include deaf only participants. I am concerned that years of technical and social progress for deaf people in the workplace which has been greatly enhanced by prior FCC actions are potentially at risk by this order. Along with my staff of 11, we provide support for 29 independent living centers throughout California. Additionally our agency has over 800 vocational rehabilitation counselors, 48 of which are tasked with helping find jobs for our state’s unemployed deaf and hard of hearing citizens. I regularly interact with my staff, Independent Living center managers, and many of our counselors on a variety of topics and frequently do so through conference calls. When I need to arrange a conference call, I invite the people whom I expect to contribute to the topic regardless of their hearing level. It is quite possible that
some of my calls involve only deaf participants, because I myself am deaf as are A/73186326.2 many of our Departmental staff. Often I am not sure who will actually commit to the conference call until the call is taking place due to schedules and workload. I ask you to consider what the FCC is potentially asking of deaf and hard of hearing Americans who are in the workplace and who may manage or interact with others who are deaf. I am not sure how else I could conduct my work without use of work conference calls. As I understand the concept of functional equivalence, and the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandate, shouldn’t I be able to use these conference calls in the course of my normal business, just like hearing
persons? These calls are a critical tool for me to do my job on a daily basis.
In addition, I am now confused as to the practical application for me and my team if this ruling is upheld. Will I have any obligation to make sure I have at least one hearing person on the line, or do I have an obligation to notify the relay provider, or providers, if the call is comprised of all deaf individuals? If I am on a call where a hearing person is involved and that person drops off the line, am I supposed to immediately disconnect the call, or notify providers?
In recent years, our agency has promoted deaf and hard of hearing individuals to key supervisory, managerial and administrative positions. Technology tools like email and video relay services have helped make this possible. I believe that CGB’s interpretation of the rules is a step backwards and sends the wrong message about the forward progress dreamed of in the ADA. Respectfully Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, please keep the interests of the deaf in mind and reject CGB’s decision on multi-party calls potentially involving onlydeaf participants.

Sincerely,
TIMOTHY P. BEATTY
Chief, Independent Living & Assistive
Technology Section
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top