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

[Dennis S.]

Some people here continue to assert that Sorenson's point of view is correct and appropriate, even in light of arguments against:

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?

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

3) D-Link features: What's Sorenson's justification for using their agreement with D-Link to prevent all other VRS providers from implementing features and enhancments on their own videophones?

4) Privacy: What's Sorenson's justification for having the right to watch you and record everything you do with your VP-100 and decide what is acceptable for you to do with a VP-100?

 

[Cousin Vinny]

Didn't the FCC decide most of these issues against Sorenson a few months ago? If so, I really can't see why Sorenson continues to resist change in their VP-100/VRS practices.

 

[Lantana]

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Stop whining and complaining and enjoy it.

"Have some cheese with your whine".

 

[Dennis S.]

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Stop whining and complaining and enjoy it.

"Have some cheese with your whine".

Troll. Go elsewhere with your one liners.

Didn't the FCC decide most of these issues against Sorenson a few months ago? If so, I really can't see why Sorenson continues to resist change in their VP-100/VRS practices.

Nope, none of the 4 issues I've mentioned are addressed by the FCC at this time. Those 4 issues stem around Sorenson's practices to prevent their users from gaining equal access to telephone services, just like AT&T (Bell) did with their competition years before they were declared a monopoly and broken up in 1984.

 

[dkf747]

I'd like to know too, but it doesn't look like anyone here can answer.

 

[Dennis S.]

I'd like to know too, but it doesn't look like anyone here can answer.

No, lots of people on this site apparently support Sorenson's actions and thus say they're in the right.

So, if they're in the right, what is the justification? No one has bothered to step up yet, but if no one steps up, that means they know they're wrong and back up their words. I'm happy to give them all the time they need to say something.

 

[Lantana]

I am a member here. And I do not speak up unless there is a very good reason to, (unlike most people).

Troll? Speak for yourself.

Deafies need to quit finding fault and stop and smell the roses.

 

[qwerty123]

I am a member here. And I do not speak up unless there is a very good reason to, (unlike most people).

Troll? Speak for yourself.

Deafies need to quit finding fault and stop and smell the roses.

lantana you go and tell Richard Roehm to stop finding fault you latina?

i am smell the long stemed roses

 

[Dennis S.]

I am a member here. And I do not speak up unless there is a very good reason to, (unlike most people).

Troll? Speak for yourself.

Deafies need to quit finding fault and stop and smell the roses.

So, your good reason to "speak up" was to basically say, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" on VRS issues. Do you even have any idea what "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" really means?

Sorenson is the ONLY VRS company doing things to alienate those who have their device from everyone else. What gives them the right to do this? They've done everything up to and including threatening they'll take away your device if you do anything they don't want you to do. Does it really scare you so much that Sorenson will take away your precious, FREE VP-100 that you'll do anything, including telling people like me to just live with it?

 

[lovesorenson]

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?

What's Dlink's justification to prevent their users from contacting the other device users by telephone number, when it was possible before?

3) D-Link features: What's Sorenson's justification for using their agreement with D-Link to prevent all other VRS providers from implementing features and enhancments on their own videophones?

If other VRS providers want to add the features or enhancements, they have to provide the money for the development, testing, and implementing.

 

[diehardbiker]

Exactly!

Sorenson VP is unique and developed, paid by Sorenson themselves, and it will be UNFAIR for Sorenson to be forced to give away to other VRS, letting other VRS taking advantage of Sorenson work, and money well spent on. Where is the copyright protection? It WILL be unfair *IF* Sorenson blocked all other VRS from giving away their own VP units. This has NOT happened! Sorenson don't mind other VRS giving away free Dlink, therefore how can Sorenson be in monopoly business?
FCC already outlined that ANY VRS have the right to create their own VP unit, designed to work with their VRS system and give away with restriction that limits to their own VRS as only operator.

AT&T of course once was in telephone monopoly business. That is because AT&T did prohibit any other business from going into telephone business for years. Court ordered AT&T to break up their system as punishment for not allowing other companies to compete. I remember that clearly, and yes AT&T made their own devices, and barred other companies from making telephones! That is called Anti-Trust, and this has to be discontinued. Sprint Corp jumped right into the system, create their own network to compete against AT&T, and that is how Sprint became huge company.

Now you see Sprint create their own network, same idea, Any VRS provider CAN create their own system and equipment of their own. HOW MANY VRS are willing to do that? Who stopped them? So far, only Sorenson! Who is at fault? NO NO NOT SORENSON!!!!

I am SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO ACCUSING SORENSON AS IF THEY ARE IN MONOPOLY BUSINESS, this is COMPLETELY UNTRUE, AND UNCALLED FOR!

If other VRS providers want to add the features or enhancements, they have to provide the money for the development, testing, and implementing.

 

[dkf747]

What's Dlink's justification to prevent their users from contacting the other device users by telephone number, when it was possible before?

Dlink only sells the videoconferencing hardware. They are not the ones who are preventing anyone from contacting others by the phone numkber method. So, we're back to Sorenson - why do they block the others?

 

[Tousi]

dkf747, you mean you didn't like deafbiker's response to the question?

 

[dkf747]

Exactly!

Sorenson VP is unique and developed, paid by Sorenson themselves, and it will be UNFAIR for Sorenson to be forced to give away to other VRS, letting other VRS taking advantage of Sorenson work, and money well spent on. Where is the copyright protection? It WILL be unfair *IF* Sorenson blocked all other VRS from giving away their own VP units. This has NOT happened! Sorenson don't mind other VRS giving away free Dlink, therefore how can Sorenson be in monopoly business?
FCC already outlined that ANY VRS have the right to create their own VP unit, designed to work with their VRS system and give away with restriction that limits to their own VRS as only operator.

AT&T of course once was in telephone monopoly business. That is because AT&T did prohibit any other business from going into telephone business for years. Court ordered AT&T to break up their system as punishment for not allowing other companies to compete. I remember that clearly, and yes AT&T made their own devices, and barred other companies from making telephones! That is called Anti-Trust, and this has to be discontinued. Sprint Corp jumped right into the system, create their own network to compete against AT&T, and that is how Sprint became huge company.

Now you see Sprint create their own network, same idea, Any VRS provider CAN create their own system and equipment of their own. HOW MANY VRS are willing to do that? Who stopped them? So far, only Sorenson! Who is at fault? NO NO NOT SORENSON!!!!

I am SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO ACCUSING SORENSON AS IF THEY ARE IN MONOPOLY BUSINESS, this is COMPLETELY UNTRUE, AND UNCALLED FOR!

Sorenson forced the others to offer free D-links in order to compete. Sorenson got their foothold in the market and now they have denied interoperability to others. Sorenson had other rules designed to get rid of the competition, but the FCC had to force them to stop. Sorenson says that if I use their VP-100 with another VRS (which is possible), they will take it away, etc...

There's more, but it has all the earmarks of a monopoly. It's being called one because it looks like one. Their tactics remind me of Microsoft. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

 

[Dennis S.]

What's Dlink's justification to prevent their users from contacting the other device users by telephone number, when it was possible before?

That would be a good question, IF D-Link was the one was preventing it. It's not. It's Sorenson.

If other VRS providers want to add the features or enhancements, they have to provide the money for the development, testing, and implementing.

They have! Many hearing businesses have purchased and ordered DVC-1000 i2eye's with modified custom firmware, different screensavers, etc. Why haven't the VRS companies been able to do the same? I mean, come on, it doesn't cost millions. Or even thousands. So, where are the customized D-Links? Where are the features we all ask for on the videophone? NONE of the other VRS companies have it? There's 8 other companies! None of them are innovative, or hear your feedback, or even care about deaf VRS users? Come on.... No, something's fishy here. I think you know that it's not D-Link that's doing the blocking here.

 

[Lantana]

For Dennis The Menace

Let us not get PERSONAL here. I am just as educated as you are.

Thank your lucky stars that you HAVE Sorenson. How many deafies would have VP if they actually had to PAY for them?? And so what if Sorenson is a monopoly? There are plenty of those in the United States.

If they come and get mine? Let them come! I do not depend on a VP to correspond with people, it is just an added convenience that I enjoy only occasionally.

 

[dkf747]

They have! Many hearing businesses have purchased and ordered DVC-1000 i2eye's with modified custom firmware, different screensavers, etc. Why haven't the VRS companies been able to do the same? I mean, come on, it doesn't cost millions. Or even thousands. So, where are the customized D-Links? Where are the features we all ask for on the videophone? NONE of the other VRS companies have it? There's 8 other companies! None of them are innovative, or hear your feedback, or even care about deaf VRS users? Come on.... No, something's fishy here. I think you know that it's not D-Link that's doing the blocking here.

You're right, something isn't right. OTOH, if Sorenson is preventing other VRS services from customizing the DVC-1000, why aren't they telling the world about it?

 

[RickL66]

I am SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO ACCUSING SORENSON AS IF THEY ARE IN MONOPOLY BUSINESS, this is COMPLETELY UNTRUE, AND UNCALLED FOR!

Right on! I'm sick of people pointing fingers at Sorenson, we should applaude them for a breakthrough.

 

[lovesorenson]

Right on! I'm sick of people pointing fingers at Sorenson, we should applaude them for a breakthrough.

I concur Rick's comment.

 

[Dennis S.]

Yawn, fanboys. Get a life.

You still haven't responded to any of my questions. It's been a week since I asked. None of you have done anything except whine, "Stop picking on us! Wahhhhh!"