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:
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.
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.
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.
