Sorenson vs ZVRS

yep the zvrs is really in violation of fcc vrs rules and zvrs cant seize the sorenson vp because it is not their property it belong to sorenson and the cant force you to use their equipment or their vrs it is outlined in fcc website under name "what consumers should know" section at Video Relay Services | FCC.gov

so... zvrs did mess up my friend's vp200 number and illegally set up the router to blocks all sorenson calls
 
vwbug19 said:
yep the zvrs is really in violation of fcc vrs rules and zvrs cant seize the sorenson vp because it is not their property it belong to sorenson and the cant force you to use their equipment or their vrs it is outlined in fcc website under name "what consumers should know" section at Video Relay Services | FCC.gov

so... zvrs did mess up my friend's vp200 number and illegally set up the router to blocks all sorenson calls
Click to expand...

As an engineer, I can tell you that ZVRS does not set up routers to block Sorenson calls.

Sorenson's SR200 router actually prevents any other Z videophone from working correctly. If you happen to have one of these routers, ZVRS will give you a list of suggested routers that are known to work with the Z phone that is being installed. Specific firmware versions and configurations are often required for this, as most consumer grade routers tend to went to "help" the signalling with an Application Layer Gateway (ALG) that interferes with _all_ H.323 or SIP phone calls.

Technically, it is a very difficult proposition to block only Sorenson calls on the router, as that would require the router to be a signalling level gateway and would need to do different things for different H.225 vendor IDs inside the protocol stream. I have never seen a router from a vendor that is capable of doing this.

More likely this was a number porting issue.

If the phone number was a port from Sorenson, then it was likely still pointing at the IP address that Sorenson puts in the iTRS database, and not at the ZVRS ZConnect IP address.

Once the phone number finishes porting on the FOC date, the ALT-SPID is changed in the NPAC database, changing the ownership of the iTRS database entry so that the new provider can change the iTRS database entry for that number.

The old provider must also "forget" about that phone number if they have their own dialplan that overrides the iTRS database entries. By not "forgetting" the number, the old provider can effectively prevent the rest of their customers from dialing a phone number even if it is assigned to another VRS provider in the iTRS database.

Just the facts.
 
I have been thinking about the telephone number which is a difficult situation.

I guess that porting a number is illegal. I am surprised that ZVRS did it on purpose. Actually, Sorenson was wrong for letting it go, but it is not our fault. It's because many regular telephone companies have their own telephone numbers for their customers.

I am saying that I don't appreciate that the company says that it is a free videophone with a porting number because the company controls you to make a choice which is very wrong. In fact, each company must give you a new telephone number no matter what. In fact, ZVRS is doing the wrong thing to do.
 
webexplorer said:
I have been thinking about the telephone number which is a difficult situation.

I guess that porting a number is illegal. I am surprised that ZVRS did it on purpose. Actually, Sorenson was wrong for letting it go, but it is not our fault. It's because many regular telephone companies have their own telephone numbers for their customers.

I am saying that I don't appreciate that the company says that it is a free videophone with a porting number because the company controls you to make a choice which is very wrong. In fact, each company must give you a new telephone number no matter what. In fact, ZVRS is doing the wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

Porting a number is perfectly legal. YOU own the number. Not your VRS provider. If you wish to change VRS providers, you get the new VRS provider to port the number to them so they can offer you service.

No VRS provider can stop you from porting a number away from them, even if they wanted to. It isn't their number. It is yours.

Videophones are not free. All providers amortize the cost of that asset across the duration of your service contract with them.

If you get a nTouch VP from Sorenson, or a Z20 from ZVRS, and you then port the number away from either provider, both will require you to ship the phone back to them or pay an Early Termination Fee (ETF) depending on how long you've been their customer. This is because the subsidization cost of that videophone costs money if the phone isn't used by the customer for VRS calls.

What really needs to happen is some form of voucher system by the FCC for the cost of the videophone to remove all of the subsiding by the providers from the revenue produced by that customer. Until that happens, this scheme isn't going away.

Personally, I'm all for giving customers choices, rather than preventing them from making their own. Competition permits that. However, that does mean that a customer needs to be savvy in their own decisions.

In the end, the phone number is yours, not your providers. That is an important distinction that is true for everyone, hearing and deaf alike.

The hearing world has these concerns as well. This _is_ functional equivalency.
 
VRSEngineer said:
Porting a number is perfectly legal. YOU own the number. Not your VRS provider. If you wish to change VRS providers, you get the new VRS provider to port the number to them so they can offer you service.
Click to expand...

I don't see why customers cannot port their phone numbers. People do it with their cell phones and landline phones whenever they switch providers.
 
You are right .... Porting number is 100% legal and number belong to customer not VRS.


But every other VRS want only Sorenson number ..

Reason is that becasue Sorenson been around for a long time now and is a very popular VRS since they been giving their product and 10 digit number away for free for years.

So for last 7+ years all incoming and outgoing hearing calls been made on that numbers Sorenson given out is a big dollars sign $$$$ in to other VRS who want that number ported over to them instead of giving their product or number away because they know thier product will probably just sit in some corner somewhere collecting dust and spider webs when customer are comfortable using a product they been using for long time.

And any other VRS beside Sorenson is worthless to them too since Sorenson is the only company worth chasing after and other VRS companies is a waste of their resource or time.

Again they going after the big dollars sign $$$$$ who happen to be in VRS busniess for a long time and is very popular which is of course Sorenson.

Now again I said porting number is legal but the practice use to lure customer over other VRS is what everyone here is pretty much angry about.

Here a few stories of shady practice of porting number to other VRS.

Most common one is telling Sorenson customer how much their "other VRS" product cost but it free if they sign a piece of paper without explaining the result what would happen if they sign that paper that their number get ported over to another VRS.

So customer would sign paper not realizing that they have signed the death of their VP200 then soon finding out their VP200 is not working so they would contact Sorenson thinking that their VP200 broke down and need it fixed.

Sorenson would explain to them no they signed a paper to port the number over to a different VRS and they would get upset because they never wanted it in the first place but of course Sorenson was happy to quickly restore their VP200 porting their number back to VP200.

Customer are happy again and angry at the other VRS because the method they use to port the customer over


Here an another story ......

One other VRS called up a Sorenson customer and told him he WON a new product from them and that they are shipping the product to him, to recieve it all he need to do is sign a paper.

What the customer did not realized that he signed a paper giving them authorization to port the number over to thier new product he supposely to have won from them.

Why would other VRS tell him he won when he could had gotten it for free in the first place just by calling them and ask for it by offering to port his number to them.

I think you all know why ....... :hmm:

His wife wasn't happy when she find out that her VP200 cease to function after the port was completed. He got real upset at the other VRS provider for not clearly explaining that he was signing authorization to port his number to them.

But he said Sorenson was very helpful and was able quickly restore his VP200 and port the number back to VP200. His wife was happy too!




And lastly from what I learn why other VRS are taking VP200 away ...

In the past when Sorenson customer port away the VP200 still work but only call they can make is to Sorenson Customer Service since it no longer have 10 digit number to it.

So customer after trying other VRS product for a few days to few weeks would call up Sorenson Customer Service on their VP200 and tell them they want to go back to VP200. Of course Sorenson is happy to serve and restore their VP200 back quickly.

But now other VRS is try to prevent customer returning back to Sorenson by taking VP200 away and making it harder for customer to return back to Sorenson after customer find that other VRS product is not something they want and VP200 is something they are comfortable using for after so many years.


Again there nothing wrong to port a number to a VRS to your choosing and it 100% legal .....

It the practice that VRS are using to try to port the number over to them so that money can start flowing in their direction

It all about $$$$$





.
 
TechBill said:
Now again I said porting number is legal but the practice use to lure customer over other VRS is what everyone here is pretty much angry about.

Here a few stories of shady practice of porting number to other VRS.

Most common one is telling Sorenson customer how much their "other VRS" product cost but it free if they sign a piece of paper without explaining the result what would happen if they sign that paper that their number get ported over to another VRS.

So customer would sign paper not realizing that they have signed the death of their VP200 then soon finding out their VP200 is not working so they would contact Sorenson thinking that their VP200 broke down and need it fixed.

Sorenson would explain to them no they signed a paper to port the number over to a different VRS and they would get upset because they never wanted it in the first place but of course Sorenson was happy to quickly restore their VP200 porting their number back to VP200.

Customer are happy again and angry at the other VRS because the method they use to port the customer over
Click to expand...

Not fully explaining the implications would be against the ZVRS employee code of ethics. Any example of this would be swiftly dealt with, if reported.

As you haven't mentioned what VRS provider has used this tactic. I can't look up tickets in my employer's system without some keyword or identifying information to search for.

Simply put, I would love to refute any claims that my employer has ever had a customer reporting such a tactic, or detail you what was done about such reports, but I need more to go on.

TechBill said:
Here an another story ......

One other VRS called up a Sorenson customer and told him he WON a new product from them and that they are shipping the product to him, to recieve it all he need to do is sign a paper.

What the customer did not realized that he signed a paper giving them authorization to port the number over to thier new product he supposely to have won from them.

Why would other VRS tell him he won when he could had gotten it for free in the first place just by calling them and ask for it by offering to port his number to them.

I think you all know why ....... :hmm:

His wife wasn't happy when she find out that her VP200 cease to function after the port was completed. He got real upset at the other VRS provider for not clearly explaining that he was signing authorization to port his number to them.

But he said Sorenson was very helpful and was able quickly restore his VP200 and port the number back to VP200. His wife was happy too!
Click to expand...

Whenever someone tells you you've "won" something, you're probably being scammed.

I just did a quick search of the ZVRS ticketing system, and there is no history of "won", "win", "contest", or "winning" in any ticket that I can find there.

This means that nobody has reported a customer reporting those words.

Without more to go on, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and suggest that either ZVRS was not involved in this scam (which would go against our strong code of ethics), or the customer you are referring to never reported it for further action against whatever individual was misrepresenting things that way.

Again, anyone at ZVRS stumbling on such a tactic would ask for immediate termination of anyone attempting such a misrepresentation.

TechBill said:
And lastly from what I learn why other VRS are taking VP200 away ...

In the past when Sorenson customer port away the VP200 still work but only call they can make is to Sorenson Customer Service since it no longer have 10 digit number to it.

So customer after trying other VRS product for a few days to few weeks would call up Sorenson Customer Service on their VP200 and tell them they want to go back to VP200. Of course Sorenson is happy to serve and restore their VP200 back quickly.

But now other VRS is try to prevent customer returning back to Sorenson by taking VP200 away and making it harder for customer to return back to Sorenson after customer find that other VRS product is not something they want and VP200 is something they are comfortable using for after so many years.


Again there nothing wrong to port a number to a VRS to your choosing and it 100% legal .....

It the practice that VRS are using to try to port the number over to them so that money can start flowing in their direction

It all about $$$$$
Click to expand...

I'm with you there. Nothing illegal. A good business tactic? Time will tell. Sometimes unfortunate? Definitely.

Shipping the VP200 back for the customer, even with their written consent, doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'm not personally fond of it, and I've let management know my opinion. However, as an employee, I can only make the company's policies public, and have the community vote with continued patronage.

In the end, however, you are correct, no VRS provider is in the business of losing money.

The best thing for a consumer to do is report any misrepresentations to both the VRS provider _and_ to the FCC using form 2000C. This is the surest way to dissuade VRS providers from continuing unwanted practices in the future:

https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000C

Please tell your friends. FCC form 2000C. It's easy to remember, and it gets results.

Just, please, do me a favor: dont' spread rumor. If you know of specific instances, have them file a form 2000C. Don't post something to a public forum with no factual information to back it up, as it frustrates people like me who want to Make Things Right, but are constantly responding to posts like "my friend said their grandmother had her number stolen by XXXX" - and nothing gets fixed.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
vwbug19 said:
yep the zvrs is really in violation of fcc vrs rules and zvrs cant seize the sorenson vp because it is not their property it belong to sorenson and the cant force you to use their equipment or their vrs it is outlined in fcc website under name "what consumers should know" section at Video Relay Services | FCC.gov
Click to expand...

How do you mean ZVRS had violated FCC rules and seize VP200? Obviously, you had no idea what ZVRS business practice, legally and ethics. Let me explain to you how it works.

ZVRS consultant explains to customer clearly that if customer wants Z20 then VP200 is being sent back to Sorenson at ZVRS expense.

ZVRS becomes an authorized, yes AUTHORIZED agent after a customer signs the release agreement AWARE and ACCEPTS that the VP200 is being sent back to Sorenson.

Sorenson filed complaint to FCC about this practice and ZVRS responded by showing all the paperwork as its being shown to customers, and their ZVRS consul (company lawyers) explained how ZVRS is being followed legally in eyes of law, FCC rules and regulations.

Know what? FCC agrees with everything what ZVRS had done so far legally, documented & signed paperwork

Sorenson got silenced . . . .
 
And oh by the way. Z20 videophone is not cheap to buy. Its a BUSINESS GRADE videophone technology.

Can you afford to buy one for 1,500 dollars from Cisco/Tandberg? Obviously not! Its a wonderful technology. It comes a huge expense at ZVRS and in fact they want you to enjoy and embrace the wonders of Z20. Thats why its a business decision to become an authorized agent after signatures received allowing them to pack VP200 and ship back to Sorenson.

Sorenson VP200 and nTouch VP is a piece of shit. Pardon my french!
 
GuySmoke420 said:
I guess ZVRS is jealousy at Sorenson.
Click to expand...


Nope. they are not jealous at Sorenson. Its a business decision for many obvious reasons.

1500 dollars videophone. Not cheap! ZVRS wants to ensure these are well invested to their company bottom line.

Sorenson's well known business practices in pulling customers back to S! I am not saying illegal or legal it is up to FCC to make a ruling on that!

Reduce Sorenson's marketshare.
 
VRSEngineer said:
Not fully explaining the implications would be against the ZVRS employee code of ethics. Any example of this would be swiftly dealt with, if reported.

As you haven't mentioned what VRS provider has used this tactic. I can't look up tickets in my employer's system without some keyword or identifying information to search for.

Simply put, I would love to refute any claims that my employer has ever had a customer reporting such a tactic, or detail you what was done about such reports, but I need more to go on.



Whenever someone tells you you've "won" something, you're probably being scammed.

I just did a quick search of the ZVRS ticketing system, and there is no history of "won", "win", "contest", or "winning" in any ticket that I can find there.

This means that nobody has reported a customer reporting those words.

Without more to go on, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and suggest that either ZVRS was not involved in this scam (which would go against our strong code of ethics), or the customer you are referring to never reported it for further action against whatever individual was misrepresenting things that way.

Again, anyone at ZVRS stumbling on such a tactic would ask for immediate termination of anyone attempting such a misrepresentation.



I'm with you there. Nothing illegal. A good business tactic? Time will tell. Sometimes unfortunate? Definitely.

Shipping the VP200 back for the customer, even with their written consent, doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'm not personally fond of it, and I've let management know my opinion. However, as an employee, I can only make the company's policies public, and have the community vote with continued patronage.

In the end, however, you are correct, no VRS provider is in the business of losing money.

The best thing for a consumer to do is report any misrepresentations to both the VRS provider _and_ to the FCC using form 2000C. This is the surest way to dissuade VRS providers from continuing unwanted practices in the future:

https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000C

Please tell your friends. FCC form 2000C. It's easy to remember, and it gets results.

Just, please, do me a favor: dont' spread rumor. If you know of specific instances, have them file a form 2000C. Don't post something to a public forum with no factual information to back it up, as it frustrates people like me who want to Make Things Right, but are constantly responding to posts like "my friend said their grandmother had her number stolen by XXXX" - and nothing gets fixed.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Everyone well know any companies is not going to be keeping thier own record of any tactics that seem seedy or wrong or not morally right unless it been reported to autorities outside of the company.

So it pointless to make claim that there nothing in your ticketing system about it and still I did not name which VRS is using such tactics and yet you responsed in defense.

As for winning a product,

No it not a scam when the product on the market for a price and is given away to a winner for free.

Any companies that sell products are welcome to put it up in raffle or drawings and give it away for free to a winning person so no scam there.

The person whom won the product from VRS was happy to recieve it and if they had given him a number along with it, I would been impressed and respect that and I am sure many other would too.

But no they had him signing a paper to recieve it and was hazy about what he was signing which is to port the number from his VP200 to the VP he won which that seem kind of bit seedy to me.

And I didn't post everything in my last post, he did call VRS that he won it from and chewed them out about it so that the number went back to his VP200 and they gave him another number for his VP he won.

He still got that VP that he won but now he telling folks how he had to complain and chew them out to get his number back and to get them to give him a number for the VP he won instead of praising the product or VRS he won it from.

If they had given him number with the VP he won, he would be one happy camper and a good walking adverstiment for that VRS he won it from.

As for "rumors" anything posted here can be either dismissed as fake / rumor or someone can read the post and relate to it.

So if it just a rumor then you have nothing to worry about because it just going to died at some point like all rumors do.

And yes I agree everything I posted is so far all hearsay but again I did not name any VRS so anyone reading this who can relate to this post will know which VRS I am posting about.


.
 
And the Sorenson smear campaign continues:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFwOF3wkjo]Customers port back to Sorenson[/ame]

I'm torn. I don't agree with what Sorenson is claiming, but I do value two things about what they're doing here:

1. Showing that there are at least a handful of customers that were not happy with their experience (so there is room for improvement).

2. All of the free advertising to the Sorenson customer base about the fact that they _can_ port away and move to other VRS providers.

There are equally as many (if not more) customers posting to the Sorenson facebook thread about these videos supporting the fact that many had a pleasant experience doing the same:

Sorenson VRS | Facebook
 
Regarding the SorensonVRS facebook page: friendly comments about good experiences with porting away from Sorenson are being actively nuked (removed from the comments), so you may miss many of the posts I'm referring to there as they won't be there when you go to read them.
 
my VLOG on Porting

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzsVONJY2BI&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Click here to view my video blog on Porting and VRS[/ame]
 
deafaussie said:
Click here to view my video blog on Porting and VRS
Click to expand...

Just because ZVRS buys those Z20s for $1500 or so and they have to buy hundreds or thousands of them does not mean Sorenson's VideoPhones cost Sorenson nothing. You also have to remember that Sorenson has to pay engineers, programmers and manufacturers to develop and design their videophone, so it does cost upwards of thousands of dollars as well per device.

Your point about Cell phone porting is sort of a moot point because you do have to pay to get a new phone from AT&T, Sprint or others at a discounted rate if you sign a 2 year contract with them. If you wish not to have a two year contract, you will have to pay the full price for the phone - then the carrier won't care if you port out because they wouldn't have lost money. Should you buy their phone with a discount, and break the lease and go elsewhere, you will have to pay a early termination fee.

Maybe all VRS providers should follow the ways of Mobile phone carriers, and make us buy their devices at a discounted (free?) rate with a 2 year agreement not to port out or buy their device at full price ($800 for the Z20?) and port out whenever so each VRS company won't have to whine about losing money.
 
deafaussie said:
Click here to view my video blog on Porting and VRS
Click to expand...

What misinformaton are you speaking of?

As far I know no VRS providers have misinformed the Deaf Commuity about 10 digit number or no VRS prevented anyone porting out thier 10 digit number to another VRS.

Once port is complete then VRS may try to encourage them to come back or other VRS may try to get them to port over to them instead.

It common busniess practices

It was the tactics that was being use to get customer to port over that was annoying and lots of us felt that they were not fully disclosing the result.

VRS ask you to sign a paper for a free product then you better read that paper first, if you don't understand it then ask them to explain it what your signing.

If they don't want to explain it but you signed anyway then it still all legal, they never force or tricked you because it is your responiablity to read what you are signing.

I think you were misinformed when you made that video.


.
 
TechBill said:
If they don't want to explain it but you signed anyway then it still all legal, they never force or tricked you because it is your responiablity to read what you are signing.

I think you were misinformed when you made that video.
Click to expand...

I agree with you TechBill, unfortunately, Many people still doesn't realize in that way. Its a customer going to a bank to sign loan paperwork to obtain a loan to buy a car and had expected an interest rate of 7.54% but they were screaming about 9.21% APR and 21% late charges. They got suckered in for next 5 years.

They were screaming blue murder "WHY DID YOU PORT SORENSON NUMBER" and says "YOU A THIEF, STOLE MY NUMBER" " I WANT TO STAY WITH SORENSON" Etc, etc, etc and other these crap!

Still many people are misinformed and I am not.
 
Back
Top