Sorenson's POV on the whole VRS / interoperability / etc issue

Sabrina said:
Ugh ?? Unbelievable, you have been accuse on Sorenson. We are very blessing to have Sorenson to communication with hearing people with an interpreter which is more faster than relay service.

You should not complain because other countries do not have this kind of amaze technology.

*big sigh* Please grow up ! :sure:
Click to expand...

Technology innovation is great, but if they use it in a childish manner on the business platform like turning the whole relay service game into a big sandbox, then people can cry foul if they want.

Richard
 
WOW! The first real, coherent, and well thought out response to my questions in the ENTIRE THREAD! You other people ought to learn from NightwarriorJin's example here:

NightwarriorJin said:
1) Interoperability: What's Sorenson's justification to prevent their users from contacting other VRS device users by telephone number, when it was possible before?
Click to expand...
It was possible before, but some user ruined the privedge on this. LDAP server was maintained by Sorenson and have people running to make sure the LDAP is up. There are problem with people using same phone number on Dlink DVC-1000 and VP-100 causing people to "Steal" phone number from other people and so on.
Click to expand...

Logically, that means two things:

1) That would mean that there was an agreement in place for one LDAP server for both devices before they were released.

2) Since they are separate devices run by separate companies, it makes complete sense for the companies to later decide to run their own separate servers that can't talk to each other, and that means that each VP and DVC had to be updated to point at the correct server, and now they can't call each other. They're two separate companies, and that's normal, no problem, right? All's right in the world, and sadly, now, neither device can use their telephone numbers to call each other.

However, we can't be sure of that. Sorenson actually runs BOTH servers. D-Link doesn't run their own server. :-o So what's the deal with that? I don't expect you to answer that, but if you can think of a reason why, please let me know.

Another problem with that is that people will hammer Sorenson's tech support for problem with their videoconferencing equiment. This is hurting their resource. In order to sepature and let other VRS handle their own customers, the entries have to be sepature. I mean, if you have a deaf that get free DVC-1000 and have a problem, half the chance, they ll hammer Sorenson's tech support, then use other VRS. Where will Sorenson tech support get reimbursements if the customer is using other VRS.
Click to expand...

All relay services have "customer service" (not just technical support). If I have another videophone and use any VRS, I can still call Sorenson for customer support. If I have a question or a concern about another VRS service, I should be allowed to call their customer service. If I'm not using Sorenson's service, Sorenson can't help me with my problem, 'cause I'm not a customer. So, how can Sorenson justify using technical support as part of the reason they block everyone else's VRS? The answer: they can't.

2) VRS interoperability: What's Sorenson's justification to prevent their users from contacting other VRS services in any way possible?
Click to expand...

Sorenson need to pay for everything, Like:
  • Tech Support
  • Maintance IT people (for Directory Server)
  • Programmer (for VP-100)
  • Sales People
  • Trainers
  • Equiment such as VP-100, Routers, Cables, etc.
    [*]Interpreter
    [*]Maintance of over 30 Call Centers
    [*]Interpreters (listed twice? I'm assuming this is a typo)
  • Development for the next generation of VP
Thats a lot of resource that Sorenson need to get those covered. If we are to let the user use other VRS provider on VP-100, this is like putting a Cola in a Pepsi, but doesnt get all the money as Pepsi will get. Think- Who will pay for the development of the next generation? We would LOVE to see the technology for videoconferencing going upward, than being on a dead heart-line. And I'd have to admit, without Sorenson, the Videoconferncing market will not be the same, we will be stuck with webcams.

Again, if people use other VRS provider, how will those:
  • Maintance People
  • Tech Support (because they provide the equiment, they need to do RMA and stuff)
  • Development of the next generation of Videoconferencing
  • Reimburse on Research development on VP-100
  • Trainer who installed VP-100 at customer's home
get covered by Sorenson if the customer were to use other VRS than Sorenson?

If OTher VRS pay Sorenson part of their minutes to cover the costs above, and Sorenson is not willing to unblock. I ll see your point now, but with all of those that need to be paid for.... Money is money.
Click to expand...

That's where the SALE of the devices is supposed to come in. You want profit for them? SELL them. VRS minutes are NOT allowed to fund anything other than the costs used to communicate between the user and the person calling. They do not fund the costs to "develop the next gen" of anything.

How do I know this?

NECA pays for VRS services. They outline how you can get paid back for VRS here:

http://www.neca.org/media/2005-06DataCollectionInstructions.DOC

You CAN charge:

1) Interpreter salaries
2) Interpreter support staff salaries (managers, maintenence people, network people, HR, accountants, marketing people, etc.)
3) Office building costs
5) Network equipment costs
6) Network access fees
7) Interpreter video equipment
8) Interpreter telephone equipment
9) Telephone access fees
10) Customer service (complaints, complements, technical issues)
11) Marketing costs (ads in paper, email, newsletters, etc)
12) R&D for MANDATORY services (i.e., meeting speed of answer requirements, 24 hour service, etc. NOT additional VP features)


It does NOT cover:
  • Development of the next generation of Videoconferencing
  • Reimburse on Research development on additional VP-100 features
  • Trainer who installed VP-100 at customer's home
  • Equipment given to relay users or incentives given to use relay

Look at Appendix 1 of the below document:
http://www.neca.org/media/2005-06DataCollectionInstructions.DOC

Look at Section C part 4, c (R&D must be related to mandatory minimum standards)
Look at Section E, part 1, f and g (The cost of equipment given to, sold to, and/or used by relay callers, and call incentives are NOT to be reported in any expenses., AND Expenses associated with installation and training on the equipment are NOT to be reported)

D-Link SELLS their devices. It becomes the property of the purchaser, and the funds from that sale go towards all the above listed things. However, Sorenson gives their device away (or loans it, or whatever they want to call it) so there's no way that they will get any money off of it. If they are getting money from it through VRS, they're probably guilty of defrauding the government.


I'll address your other points shortly.
 
Dennis said:
WOW! The first real, coherent, and well thought out response to my questions in the ENTIRE THREAD! You other people ought to learn from NightwarriorJin's example here:
Click to expand...

Well I'm not planning on playing Paulette Caswell on a thread like this either.

Richard
 
Interest Finding. I will research more onto it. Meanwhile to answer one of your point
Dennis said:
All relay services have "customer service" (not just technical support). If I have another videophone and use any VRS, I can still call Sorenson for customer support. If I have a question or a concern about another VRS service, I should be allowed to call their customer service. If I'm not using Sorenson's service, Sorenson can't help me with my problem, 'cause I'm not a customer. So, how can Sorenson justify using technical support as part of the reason they block everyone else's VRS? The answer: they can't.
Click to expand...
What I mean is by hardware tech support. People will call onto them for RMA/Exchange/etc. So in other word, they not only do the support of how to use VRS, but to do the hardware part as well. Image people who have DVC-1000 call Sorenson's Tech support asking for replacement. That's what I mean by this.

Again, let me research on those "reimburse" on development. But is it a possibly that Sorenson may find a way of saying that its for the requirement (like "to provide accurary service, for interpreter to see caller clearer and give better interpretion services") I am curious how they will "cover" the cost of increasing the quality of service. Are you telling me that the websites like www.hovrs.com, www.sprintvrs.com, etc are NOT covered by the NESA? If so, then whats the point of having engineers as pointed in NESA documents. Research and Development, like what? "Oh! I found a way to forward a call! yay!?"

I have to think on that.. but I have school, so mind if I can sleep on this for a while, but I ll be sure to get back to you.

Mod: Can you lock Richard out of this thread (not ban but, lock so he cannot post here, please? Thanks!)
 
Sure. Take your time, this thread will be here for a little while. Good luck with school. Anyone else wanna run with his points while he's gone? No? Didn't think so.

NightwarriorJin said:
What I mean is by hardware tech support. People will call onto them for RMA/Exchange/etc. So in other word, they not only do the support of how to use VRS, but to do the hardware part as well. Image people who have DVC-1000 call Sorenson's Tech support asking for replacement. That's what I mean by this.
Click to expand...

I can sure call T-Mobile's customer service if I'm trying to fix my Sprint or Cingular or Verizon phone, but it doesn't mean they're gonna be able to help me. However, if I had a phone from Cingular and wanted to transfer it to T-Mobile, customer service would help me out because I'm a CUSTOMER now. It seems that it works only one way - if you have a DVC-1000, you sure can get support from Sorenson!

The equipment and the service are supposed to be completely separate from each other. I'm sure that all DVC-1000 users call the other VRS technical support asking for help replacing their VP-100 or a DVC-1000. They would be told that they can't do this, because, after all, that's not a device those VRS support. They would be told they have to contact the appropriate manufacturer. I'm also sure that Sorenson's "technical support" people are not the same people who can issue an RMA on a VP-100 -- it would have to go to a different department who handles that. So what's the point?

Again, let me research on those "reimburse" on development. But is it a possibly that Sorenson may find a way of saying that its for the requirement (like "to provide accurary service, for interpreter to see caller clearer and give better interpretion services") I am curious how they will "cover" the cost of increasing the quality of service. Are you telling me that the websites like www.hovrs.com, www.sprintvrs.com, etc are NOT covered by the NESA? If so, then whats the point of having engineers as pointed in NESA documents. Research and Development, like what? "Oh! I found a way to forward a call! yay!?"
Click to expand...

Go ahead and look into the R&D angle some more. Here's my perspective on it:

Costs are covered the way the government believes they should be covered -- you come up with the innovation, then when the government believes its required, they'll reimburse you for the costs from that point on. If it's not required, it shouldn't be paid, because the government is not in the business of increasing innovation, it is in providing basic services to keep civilization running.

The taxes we pay would be astronomical if we had to also pay for innovation costs -- those attempts often fail and take a long time to succeed. All the costs would simply go to giving people jobs in where their whole existence depends on them dreaming up new ideas on the government's dime. The minute you produce results is the minute the government stops paying you for thinking up new ideas. Thus, no one would come up with anything, because then they'd lose their free paycheck and actually have to DO SOME WORK.

So, where does the money come from? Investment. How do you get start up capital? Investors. The company should put up their own money into their R&D and when they get something viable with a good return on that investment, they should go ahead and release it. This a) Gives them a competitive advantage for a while when it's not mandatory, (things can be non-mandatory but still reimbursed, i.e., VRS voicemail) and b) Gets them more money when it becomes mandatory because they already have it out there when their competitors have to develop something because it's now mandatory.
 
Nope, I'm pretty sure she is hearing but has been involved in deaf issues in the past; I don't remember what issues.
 
Okay this is getting a little bit carried away here.. First of all - Sorenson does NOT record any videos or whatsoever. That is indicated in the agreement and etc. Some people are getting a bit paranoid here. Yes, Sorenson has become a monopoly - they are the leading market here but it is because they INVEST the time and the effort and dedication to improve technology. Don't get me wrong I think CSD is doing a great job, but they dont have the technology to really keep up. There is MORE to the service than just the interpreters, you need the technology to sell it. And you know, to say that Sorenson should unblock other VRS - how would HOVRS feel if people got free VP from HOVRS and used Sorenson's interpreters if they were better. HOVRS will lose money, same with CSD. And the VP-100 were designed for Sorenson - Sorenson I am assuming must have worked out a deal with DLINK - so why doesn't HOVRS and CSD do the same? But in serious note, when you get the device for free - you should be grateful. I have alot of friends who work for CSD (I have family who works for CSD), and I support them. But I do use the Sorenson VRS - because I can't afford blurry pictures when I use the CSD VP. I dont get blurry pictures using Sorenson VP. Point is being here - you get something free they shouldnt "HAVE" to let you use other interpreters. You can always get a DLINK from any of the other providers if you want to use them.
 
DefLord said:
And you know, to say that Sorenson should unblock other VRS - how would HOVRS feel if people got free VP from HOVRS and used Sorenson's interpreters if they were better.
Click to expand...

HOVRS seemed just fine with that. When I ordered my Dlink from them, they called me on my VP 100 and asked mr why I wanted it when I already had one. I told them flat out that I wanted to use it for whichever VRS I wanted to. They approved it and I have it now.
 
From a business standpoint that is just plain dumb! And you wonder why Sorenson is ahead of all the other VRS.. Because the other VRS allows you to use it to call other VRS. So they lose money -
 
DefLord said:
From a business standpoint that is just plain dumb! And you wonder why Sorenson is ahead of all the other VRS.. Because the other VRS allows you to use it to call other VRS. So they lose money -
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter from a "business sense." You cannot force anyone to only use any one relay service. You can develop the device, and make it EASIER to use your service than anyone else's, but you cannot prevent them from using anyone else's.

The FCC has been quite clear on this.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-141A1.pdf

The TRS rules do not require a consumer to choose or use only one VRS (or TRS) provider. A consumer may use one of several VRS providers available on the Internet or through VRS service hardware that attaches to a television. Therefore, VRS consumers cannot be placed under any obligation to use only one VRS provider’s service, and the fact that they may have accepted VRS equipment from one provider does not mean that they cannot use another VRS provider via other equipment they may have. In addition, a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.
Click to expand...

The provision of TRS is “an accommodation that is required of telecommunications providers, just as other accommodations for persons with disabilities are required by the ADA of businesses and local and state governments.”3 To this end, Section 225 is intended to ensure that TRS “give persons with hearing or speech disabilities ‘functionally equivalent’ access to the telephone network.”
Click to expand...



Now, Sorenson advocates like to use this line in the above quote:

via other equipment they may have
Click to expand...

However, that's not FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT. Hearing people do not have to have 2 different telephones to make calls. Deaf people should not have the expectation to acquire a TTY when they have a restrictive VRS device preventing them from making telephone calls. Therefore, the FCC needs to remedy this right away.
 
In addition, a VRS provider (or its installers) should not be adjusting a consumer’s hardware or software to restrict access to other VRS providers without the consumer’s informed consent.
Click to expand...

Taken from your FCC quote above. You would think this sentence would be enough to allow interoperability.
 
You are right installers should not be adjusting other VRS equipment. Okay it is like this - I have a Verizon Phone and if I need to call information - who do I get Verizon's Information desk - and they bill me 1.00 for every time I call information. Now I would rather to call maybe Sprint Information because they may be cheaper .75 cents but I can't because their technology based on their devices were DESIGNED for them and for them only.

And most of all you CHOSE to have Sorenson equipment then you are ACCEPTING the choice so quit the whining. If you don't like it then DON'T use Sorenson equipment then they will lose money and use other providers. If this is such a big deal - then don't get Sorenson and send the video camera back and use the DLINK which provides opporunity with other VRS.
 
"Choosing" Sorenson isn't a choice. It is an unreasonable expectation for the deaf users out there to:

a) Be trained and expect to remember how to operate 2 different devices to get their equal access
b) Not be used with other kinds of relay services -- that means that your friends with TTYs can't call you on VRS, they have to get their own VP to talk to you.

Given these things, there's no way consumers will be able to avoid getting Sorenson VP-100's if they are not good at using technology. If you don't understand IP addresses, and are stuck in the past with phone numbers, and most of your friends have VP-100's, you can only get a VP-100.

If they understand IP addresses or technology, I would say they tend to go with freedom of choice and get a D-Link or both and put up with the limitations that having both devices put on them.
 
Back
Top