Two days ago I vblogged about the VRS directories not being open. The post discussed the concern of various VRS phone numbers not being able to call other providers’ telephone numbers. I used the telephone number portability requirement that was passed by FCC as an example. While this was a good example, someone e-mailed me a better example.
FCC passed a law requiring that all VOIP (Voice over IP) providers allow their users to call other users that use a different VOIP service. VOIP, or internet telephony, is a cheaper method to place calls through the internet. Previously, VOIP were not enabling this interoperability.
The VRS industry is NOT interoperable in the sense that real phone numbers cannot be used to call a different VRS provider or device.
In the past two days, I’ve been contacted by several people regarding my post, including people from the VRS industry, former VRS employees and other people that aren’t affiliated with an VRS provider, but has a strong interest in the industry.
I want to thank a person who took the time to sit down and explain to me everything what is going on related to real phone numbers (yes, we had to exchange IP addresses :)). With the plentiful information listed on various blogs and sites, I am surprised not more has been done to address this.
I see two things that need to be done:
- Explain more clearly to consumers about what is going on
- Petition Sorenson to open their telephone number directory. Because Sorenson’s directory is closed, I cannot call a Sorenson user with their phone number, nor can they call me. Because Sorenson has a monopoly of about 80 to 90% of relay users, getting them to open the directory will be a step forward in pushing VRS companies to issue real phone numbers that work across systems.
I’ve been creating a blog on which I will be posting more information about the telephone number issue and opening Sorenson’s directory. All this while, I’ve been learning more about it so as soon as I have information put together, I will make them into posts (with vlogs).
Available now on the blog is an easy-to-use petition. Signing the petition means you agree to boycott Sorenson’s VRS services.
I hope this boycott will awaken the giant that is SorensonVRS. Once they have woken, they will more readily address our concerns. Like I said, several blogs and sites have existed for several months and we have not seen a change from Sorenson. With the petition and boycott, we will see if this works.
Equally as important as signing the petition is to e-mail the petition to your family and friends. Publishing this on DeafRead isn’t going to be enough, so I made a page that makes it easy to e-mail the petition. The more the petition gets out, the more impact we will see!
Email This Post
Posted on April 17th, 2008 by tayler
April 17th, 2008 11:20 am
I now understand.
That is why you did not answser my questions few days ago but thanks!
There is a but……I need to know more substantial answers from FCC, anyway.
April 17th, 2008 11:32 am
Whooo! Going head to head with a monopolistic corporation! Go, tayler!
April 17th, 2008 11:42 am
For once, we agree on something.
I do not like Sorenson and their professional practices at all.
I shall sign the petition.
Thanks, Tayler.
:o)
Paotie
April 17th, 2008 11:46 am
I would do ANYTHING for you. I definitely TRUST your instinct, Tayler!
I am doing this to punish the Sorenson for not sending a technician to my place or receive the Sorneson VRS device.
Too many and many deaf people keep asking me for getting the VP almost everyday.
I also am doing it to punish the Sorneson, Inc. for the naming of the SLCC, instead of leaving to the Gallaudet community to decide the name of the new building.
James Sorneson was the third richest American on the Forbes list last year. Whoa!
The Sorneson, Inc. have no right to monopolize the VRS market. The Bell Company did face the same situation in the 80s for their monoply practices with the phone market. That led to the explosion of creative technology like cell phone. We have wireless pagers now.
Where is the online petition I could sign on? I did not see any etched mark for forwarding your vlog posting to other people?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
April 17th, 2008 11:48 am
Oops! I overlooked the text message above. I did see the enclosed petition and marking for forward your vlog posting. My apology for not paying attention to the text message. I just went to the comment forum without bothering to read the text message.
RLM
April 17th, 2008 11:53 am
I will definitely forward the link to this site to many people I know (that DO NOT read DR)! I know many are just as frustrated with Sorenson too!
I just got an email today regarding this same issue from someone who needed to vent.
April 17th, 2008 12:12 pm
Tayler, I sent you a question yesterday, however, you did not respond. Is Sorenson the only VRS provider that refuses to open their directory or make their directory public? If this petition is about getting VRS to open their directory…I would not want my phone number to be public. I should have the choice (as in the white directory) whether to publish my number or not. I don’t think that everyone would consent to having their number published.
Currently, anybody can submit a request to contact someone on VP and it would be up to the person whether they want to be contacted or not.
April 17th, 2008 12:19 pm
Kudos.
April 17th, 2008 12:32 pm
FYI, DLink also uses Sorenson’s server!! It means you don’t use DLink or SOrenson’s equipment…
Only way to use the videophone is — Ojo or webcams. Dig ?
April 17th, 2008 12:44 pm
[riffly_video]A7E285AC0CBC11DDBBCFD0A456B4F508[/riffly_video]
April 17th, 2008 1:26 pm
i probably agree with you on this one..
wouldnt it be easier to open a blog and publish numbers at will?
and ask that others submit their numbers as well?
might be a few numbers in the beginning but im sure it will snowball..
it would then be a voluntary act and yet be independent of sorenson..
April 17th, 2008 1:48 pm
ahh Tayler, can you clarify? Can use Sorenson VP but use different relay provider or are you saying DO NOT USE Sorenson VP at all???
Judge got me all messed up.
April 17th, 2008 2:08 pm
I have never like Sorenson anyway! They sucks! I use their vp device to call other friends, not their relay service heh. I defintely use HOVRS through iChat.
Use HOVRS! They will have MVP (Mobile VP) coming out in summer and it’s free!!
Will sign petition, no questions!
JFLMad
April 17th, 2008 2:26 pm
Here are the links that you may want to review about Sorenson VRS.
http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/
http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/07/i-challenge-you-sorenson/
Please read Bob Daniels’ website about FCC and 10-digit number system.
http://www.bobdaniels.com/vlogs.html
[riffly_video]022EF3500CCD11DD96DED0A456B4F508[/riffly_video]
April 17th, 2008 2:29 pm
[riffly_video]6679FB3E0CCD11DDBBCFD0A456B4F508[/riffly_video]
April 17th, 2008 3:10 pm
Tayler,
Hi there. Are you aware that NONE of the VRS Providers offer REAL telephone numbers? That is why the fcc in its recent Order on E911 requires Providers to accept 911 calls, until a telephone number system is in place which will assist in identifying who the caller is when VI’s connect with a local PSAP (Public Saftey Answering Point). This order includes a meeting to discuss the various proposals out there on April 29th, 2008 at the FCC in Washington DC. Consumer organizations such as TDI, NAD, California Coalition of Agencies, etc, have been involved pushing for the Telephone number system to be in place asap. Bottom line, your concern about Sorenson is appreciated, however, I do not feel Sorenson will act nor will any Provider for that matter, until the FCC selects/decides on on a proposal that is currently before them, including comments filed on FCC Docket, 03-123. Basically, it is the FCC you need to be pushing to get a system in place. Its long overdue.
Thanks.
April 17th, 2008 3:21 pm
you meant Bush’s FCC ??
hahaha
we can certainly try
April 17th, 2008 3:51 pm
Way to go, Taylor.
I sent them to friends who don’t read Deaf Read.
Amy,
I agree with u about getting a free stuff that will limit our rights.
April 17th, 2008 4:03 pm
Here is the info on the FCC order I referred to in my message above:
Report and Order adopting interim emergency call handling requirements for the Internet-based
forms of TRS. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing
Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-
196, Report and Order, FCC 08-78 (rel. Mar. 19, 2008). http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519870658
(I have this document in pdf format should you want this, feel free to ask).
Thanks.
April 17th, 2008 4:11 pm
Sheri –
Thanks for everything about the documents from FCC.
That’s what I want to read.
Again, thanks.
Judge –
DLink….oh yeah! Your’e digging it up really good.
April 17th, 2008 4:28 pm
Gee. Sorenson and their oppressive right-wing tendencies imposed stifling innovation in the spirit of fair competition. I’m baffled about an eminent member of the Sorenson family (he’s so involved with the VRS aspect of the Sorenson empire of business) donating to a number of anti-homosexual causes according to public records. In the very same vein of this absurdity there are numerous homosexual interpreters and workers slaving for Sorenson! Talk about conscience or a lack of it on part of Sorenson. Please don’t use this as a vehicle to discuss homosexuality. This is about Sorenson and their lack of integrity in business. One of the miracles of mankind is the fact I never laid my hands on a Sorenson product. I even refuse QuickTime because of Sorenson Compression. You must be pure in your boycotting of Sorenson’s shit.
April 17th, 2008 5:05 pm
I find it incredible that you would resort to disinformation and false information against Sorenson.
The naming of SLCC was NOT Sorenson’s. It was IKJ’s decision.
And in response to Amy - you got it all wrong. The supply of VP200 was outstripped by the demand. DLink is no longer being manufactured. Sorenson has to go to different company to do better manufacturing job of getting more of VP200. Delivery priority is to those who don’t have a VP yet.
And NO to the claims that Sorenson took monopoly. It is CSD IP relay services, Hamilton IP and others ’s fault for REJECTING the VPs, saying the Deaf loves the TTY, not VPs - that was 1996 !!! Sorenson tried 4 years and decided to go to the FCC about it and received federal authorization to set up the videophone division that became Sorenson Communications.
Directories - if your area is not served by Qwest, the phone numbers in that area will not be included in Qwest directories. Same is true of any phone companies.
Get your facts straight instead of rumor mongering.
April 17th, 2008 5:16 pm
D. Samuelsen,
I have a question. When did the DLink stop manufacture?
April 17th, 2008 5:34 pm
@W. David Samuelsen
We are not rumor mongering. You have your facts wrong too.
1) SorensonVRS is a monopoly simply because they handle 80 to 90% of relay calls. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is. By definition, because Sorenson handles the majority of calls, they have a monopoly on the VRS industry.
2) If my phone number is in the Qwest directory, a person not on it CAN call me. The opposite is true (A non-Qwest customer can call a phone number on the Qwest directory)
April 17th, 2008 6:22 pm
What you said is true but you’re forgetting one IMPORTANT thing. Sorenson can easily make solution happen fast with almost everyone get phone number. Sorenson won’t and their excuse is to wait for FCC by dec 31 2008.
UNACCEPTABLE! SOrenson should not wait for FCC to do right thing. Other companies have proposed solution for numbering already. Sorenson–no proposal! Just talk. SOrenson should adopt one of those proposal with other companies and we can have phone numbers.
Same before: You, Sheri, and others forced FCC to require interoperability. Sorenson wait long time until two or so weeks before interoperabiity requirement–then “voluntarily” started interoperability. Now same excuse–they’re waiting for FCC order.
WHy should we wait until dec 31 2008? Sorenson should adopt one of the numbering proposal NOW with other companies and start it. Do the right thing!
Tayler, thank you for having courage to speak out. Most “leaders” out there won’t have guts to speak out against sorenson (or csdvrs weird number idea)…afraid of them. Tayler, you’re brave. I admire you. Sheri, I admire you too for bringing this issue up with FCC.
I’m gonna sign the petition now. I don’t want to wait until dec 31 2008!
Admirer (of Tayler and Sheri!)
April 17th, 2008 6:30 pm
W. David Samuelson. You’re one of the all-time most pathetic apologists to whatever Sorenson and most of Utah and it’s Great Salt Lake since polluted by God-awful judgmentally rumor-mongering Deaf Utahns. It’s no wonder your apologetics were cultivated by that culture Utah are most famously associated with.
April 17th, 2008 6:33 pm
I believe Sorenson is engaging in preemptive strategy until December 31, 2008 just so whatever takes effect on January 1, 2009 will benefit Sorenson the most–say 80-90% more than any services out there. That’s called engaging in “lateral monopoly” as is commonplace in deaf communities (musical chairs in leaderships of organizations–warding off outsiders from assuming leadership).
April 17th, 2008 6:47 pm
Admirer, Anonymous and everyone else, the more this is discussed, the more information is revealed. I hadn’t thought of that — Sorenson is just buying time. Intolerable!
If you have any more information, please send it my way. Anonymity is guaranteed, I swear!
I can’t say this enough — sign the petition! I will be finding ways to send a letter with the petition attached to FCC. It’s time the consumers spoke out. I will be making sure each signature is worth your time!
April 17th, 2008 6:49 pm
Tayler,
how come you are allowing anonymous when you require the names be shown?
April 17th, 2008 6:51 pm
As for Qwest comment,
you lost.
Sorenson directory is available to public but only 1368 customers opted to list but they put additional restrictions on getting their phone numbers.
I am Qwest customer for long time and you will NOT able to find my name in their pages, either.
Your complaint is misdirected.
April 17th, 2008 6:51 pm
I give them the choice. If they want to remain anonymous, they can. Why? Do you wish you were anonymous?
April 17th, 2008 6:55 pm
Re: Qwest
It doesn’t matter if the directory is public or not. The issue is if I don’t have a Sorenson VP100 or VP200, I need an IP address to connect with one in order to videophone. That is what “closed directory” means in this subject.
April 17th, 2008 7:00 pm
Mr. Samuelsen,
I need to know when did the DLink stop manufacturing on VP100? I could not find any information on the Support Service’s email address in the website. They only provided the Support Service’s VP number.
I have lots of questions for you.
Thanks.
April 17th, 2008 7:03 pm
Thumb up Amy Cohen Efron…….. Good tip!
Davy
April 17th, 2008 7:09 pm
even if we get the FCC to make the changes, it is my own opinion that Sorenson will make the changes months before the FCC announcement just like they did with the interoperability issue. It is my own personal belief that they knew the FCC was going to mandate interoperability and Sorenson’s lobbyist notified them of this so they announced interoperability to try to save face and that If they knew FCC would not mandate interoperatibility then they would have not done so.
April 17th, 2008 7:10 pm
I admit one possibility. The whole ten-digit-number-VRS-thing will be obsoleted as soon as the Maryland School for Deaf encouraged in-breeding program reaches its fruition putting AGBELL to shame. Imagine this.. 999-999-9999. ONLY 9,999,999,999 people!
Imagine one calling someone here at the ID, “TheFascist” delivering what he needs to know for a change. Heck, in the very last days he’ll be hell-bent on defending his Utah compound while we hold ID auctions!
I can’t wait to watch this unfold!
April 17th, 2008 7:12 pm
Saving face! Oh! I remember Sorenson announcements (was one about interoperability) supporting FCC decisions while in the same vein fuming under its breath! That’s freaking damage control. What a farce!
April 17th, 2008 7:26 pm
D-Link had the old version of D-Link that the hearing market no longer wanted, losing market share to webcam manufacturers.
So Sorenson offered D-Link company an opportunity to make VP-100 which was more advanced version of D-Link and it lasted for a while then VP-100 was discontinued to make room for manufacturing VP-200.
Sorenson requested increase in quota in manfacturing VP-200 and D-Link refused, and lost the contract to another company to manfacture VP-200 at increased rates now.
Only 10 percent or thereabout of the Deaf population has VP, be it MVP, VPAD or VP-200.
The demand is very great for VP-200 more than the others because of phone numbers.
HOVRS’ MVP and Viable’s VPAD still uses IP numbers.
MVP has one advantage over VP-200 - wireless and does not require constant plugged in power supply and uses only batteries as needed. VPAD does.
So it is not only Sorenson doing product development, so are HOVRS and Viable.
This information comes from friends who has been inside long time.
Does this answer to what had happened to D-Link company?
April 17th, 2008 7:28 pm
Interoperability issue - it is the other companies at fault. They still continue to use IP addresses and not willing or can’t agree on cost sharing of the database operability.
Sorenson is not willing to foot 100 percent of it. The other companies have to shoulder their share.
April 17th, 2008 7:30 pm
Premptive monopoly?
No such thing as that. It was the market demand that gave Sorenson the greatest share.
Remember I said in first post - CSD, Hamilton, Ameritech, and few other companies back in 1996 had Relay services that was very dependent on TTY services and $$ from the states. They are at fault for the end result because those companies thought the Deaf love TTYs more than VPs, and actually told Sorenson they don’t want VPs.
I remember Texas tried and found Deaf wanted VPs more than TTYs. Ask Ed Bosson about that.
April 17th, 2008 7:42 pm
Mr. Samuelson,
Thanks for the great details.
Will I have to obtain the VP200?
I read the Sorenson’s website (Frequently Asked Questions) and it stated that I’ll have to buy the DLink i2eye verison from the Best Buy and it also stated that the Sorenson partnered with D-Link to create the i2eye version of the Sorenson VP100. Both VPs will produce the high quality video when connected to a high speed internet connection.
So, what’s your advice for me to use the better equipment for the VP100 or VP200?
April 17th, 2008 7:43 pm
Whatever you’re drinking David, please share it as I could use a delusional moment after having a long day. CSD is actually among the pioneers of VRS so dont say that they were very dependent on TTY services. I am fairly sure that Ed Bosson would vouch for that statement as well. CSD was the very first VRS provider and they dont have the multi-billions of dollars that Sorenson has, if they did, rest assured, they would have developed a VP that would blow the crap out of their VPs.
With the billions of dollars they had, they were able to get many VPs out there and then implement their blocking methods, thats one surefire way of obtaining a preemptive monopoly.
You’re delusional, simply delusional!
April 17th, 2008 7:49 pm
1996?? Sorenson offered the VP100 when CSD didn’t have one.
April 17th, 2008 7:54 pm
I know, they had the billions whereas CSD didn’t. CSD used webcams before Sorenson came out with the VP100.
April 17th, 2008 8:00 pm
White Ghost
VP100 is older version with limited choices. VP200 has much more choices.
I can’t say about i2eye since I don’t use it and much less seen one other than on web (I recalled one of those VRS companies has it on display - there are 19 VRS companies now.)
To get VP200 - it won’t be easy because of priorties (not sure about 2 and 3)
1. The ones who have NO VPs (market demand)
2. The ones who have VPs and want to switch to Sorenson
3. The ones who have worn out VP100s (they do wear out in time)
4. Job requirements
5. what else I do not know
Biggest problem is there are many areas where high speed internet access is not available - even for MVP or VPAD, too. One of my friends still do not have access despite being in that area that is booming - just the luck of a particular area in that city not having access yet. Another friend had to use long distance microwave wireless in order to get VP access for few years before Qwest finally got to his area. Demand is unbelivable for high speed access in rural areas.
Remember only 10+ percent of the Deaf have VP. The demand is very great for all involved companies to try to meet.
April 17th, 2008 8:03 pm
Mr. Samuelson,
Thanks so much for all your time to update me about the status regarding the VP100 and VP200.
I really appreciate it very much!
April 17th, 2008 8:08 pm
CSD used webcams WITH IP ADDRESS requirement. Sorenson had better product that was offered to CSD and they sticked with the webcam and paid the price for it, lost big share of market to Sorenson later.
Now I understand CSDVRS was sold to a CODA.
James L. Sorenson was different guy than others I’ve known. He is a “get feet wet” with his innovations and long term visions of what he wanted to see done. All of them are paying off not only for him but for millions of people.
Be grateful to him for the cathers, disposable masks, tubes, etc used in hospitals. He invented, developed and saw to the mass production of these now very vital sterile disposable items. I shudder to think about the days when it was thick needles used in 1940s-1950s that had to be re-sterilized and re-used so often. He put his hard-earned money to work for the millions, not for himself. The Sorenson family is not involved in Sorenson Communications any more, even they are next door to Sorenson Companies.
There are quite a number of developments in work at the time of his death. One has to do to bring the cost of DNA testing to below 99 dollars or more. What other developments out there James Sorenson started I do not know.
April 17th, 2008 8:10 pm
Preemptive strategy. Sorenson is like “oh shit, shit and shit” buying time until December 31, 2008 in order to do whatever they need to engage in what I call “lateral monopoly” so they can develop just what they need to maintain their customer base (these disempowered Deaf who limits their thinking “FREE VP” (naively jumping up and down) unlike that of the very sophisticated customer here–me!
Analogy here. Lateral run in football. Imagine a runner with the football facing a defensive player (representing the rest of the world of Deaf and HH people and other VRS services), the ball carrier is like “oh shit” and pitches (lateral) out to another offensive player tagging right behind him.
The constant in this kind of action is the offensive team still has the ball and can use to their advantage while they kill time until they have to cough up in name of mandate as just handed down by the FCC. You see this case of Sorenson the lateral tactic is considered as a strategy unethical.
I know the day of judgment (if based on behavior in this industry) Sorenson and its employees and users (notably those freeloaders) will be relegated to Outer Darkness (Mormon terminology for Hell).
April 17th, 2008 8:14 pm
Everyone please stay on subject. Any that isn’t will be deleted.
Since Sorenson is the monopoly in the VRS industry, and we depend on making VRS calls, we can boycott Sorenson pushing them to open their directory–in effect getting all the VRS companies to join together and implement a system based on 10 digit phone numbers. Interoperability has been mandated by the FCC for VOIP systems, and cellphone carriers are required to support number portability — all the while the deaf aren’t getting any of this.
April 17th, 2008 8:29 pm
Granted, Sorenson did well in the medical market and I do pass along kudos on what he has done in those fields, they have done very well and indeed my hat is off to them in that regard, but that is not the point here, as we are talking VRS here.
Now whether or not Sorenson offered it to CSD, that I do not know, but logic tells me that if that were the case, then they were asking for way too much, and CSD, as a non-profit organization, could not afford those terms. If they implemented blocking practices for a long time where they did not care if deaf people had to suffer long waits, even hours, just to get a VRS operator, this logic tells me that that it was probably an outrageous offer that they offered to CSD, in which they had to decline.
Now, I do not know if CSDVRS was sold to a CODA, but its my understanding that they went to a VC firm, just the same way that Sorenson sold their VRS to another VC firm. A non-profit organization that purely has deaf people in their utmost and best interests, is probably limited by federal regulations that apply to non-profit organizations so having to sell to a VC was probably their best choice in order to effectively compete with major vrs providers.
What has Sorenson really done for the deaf community?, im not referring to employees or contractors. If memory serves me correctly, after they opened their first one or two call centers, they headed right over to where CSDVRS and other VRS providers already had call centers, such as Austin and Minneapolis to name a couple examples, and simply lured away interpreters from existing call centers in the same area with better pay. Now the other VRS providers that already had call center simply were not going to just fold up their offices and go away, they had to hire more interpreters, which then created a severe crisis for community interpreting. Deaf people were then lacking interpreters in emergency rooms and the like as a result of this. Did they benefit the deaf community as a whole? Certainly not.
Now I am not an employee of any of the VRS or relay providers, but I get the impression that you are an employee of Sorenson, as from my experience, they’re the only deaf people that are staunch defenders of Sorenson.
April 17th, 2008 9:37 pm
Tayler,
Why are you bashing Sorenson? What about HOVRS, SNAPVRS and other VRS having to open their
April 17th, 2008 9:44 pm
Because Sorenson is the monopoly in VRS industry with 80 to 90% of relay calls, we are boycotting Sorenson to push them to open their directory–in effect getting all the VRS companies to join together and implement a system based on 10 digit phone numbers. Moreover, the FCC has required Sorenson to open up their directory–which they have refused. Why they haven’t been fined is beyond me.
VRS calls are a functional part of our lives–so while we boycott the largest company, we can depend on the other companies for VRS calls during this time. As far as I know, the other companies are ready to design and implement an interoperable system.
April 17th, 2008 10:23 pm
Tayler,
I know what you are talking about now… what you are demanding is the EXACT opposite of 10-digit petition..
IP databases are off limits even to the law enforcement. Phone companies will not allow anyone, even their own employees not authorized to do so from getting access to the IP address databases.
It requires an act of Congress to open ALL to all acess.
If it ever comes to this - you can bet the hell will break out with stiff opposition from the anti-spammers and phone companies. Even Comcast doesn’t allow public access to their IP databases.
I am all for the 10-digit phone number database but HANDS OFF the IP databases.
Behind each and every line, every number, every point of connection there is a single IP address specifically assigned to that one point. Once opened, it becomes a paradise for the spammers.
So I say NO WAY IN HADES to your demand.
FCC has NEVER made the requirement of Sorenson to open up the IP database. In fact the FCC is NOT authorized by Telecommunications Act to do so. Only the courts and Congress can do. Patriot Act authorize law enforcement to request court to have access to the IP databases for criminal investigations. No one else. Phone companies can refuse. ISP companies can refuse to the point of requiring court order to do so. The proof is RIAA’s court actions to get ISPs to disclose specific information.
April 18th, 2008 4:18 am
W. David Samuelsen, CSDVRS isn’t sold to CODA! The answer is NO. Now, I know you are a troublemaker. Not worth reading your message from now on.
Please sign the petition and boycott the SorensonVRS!
April 18th, 2008 5:57 am
Tayler–
A couple of things:
First, why are you bringing up the fact that Sorenson has a ‘monopoly’ on relay calls here? That is a red herring because you are really talking about connecting a VP to another VP. Relay calls have nothing to do with this issue whatsoever.
Second, you need to realize that the phone numbers that are in Sorenson’s directory aren’t real phone numbers. They are the numbers that each Sorenson VP user selects for themselves, provided that no other VP100/200 user has the same number.
It is just their own system that connects the IP addresses to the 10 digit number and I fail to understand why you are asking Sorenson to give up their propietary database so other videophones can use it?
What actually should be done here is to have each device assigned a unique telephone number through the NANP system that the hearing folks have with their own phones (Vonage does this). To achieve that result, Sorenson’s database will become moot/unnecessary.
In other words, you are fighting the wrong fight here. You should be advocating for an independent numbering system or attach the VPs to the current NANP system. Just because Sorenson has a monopoly on relay calls, that doesn’t give you carte blanche to attack them for their own propietary database which connects their OWN VPs to a number… Sorenson worked hard to develop their own system for their own VPs and that does not give other VPs (dlink, webcams, etc.) the right to latch onto the unique database system that Sorenson has…
April 18th, 2008 6:59 am
Oh my!!! You guys are whining over a little thing!!! GET A LIFE ! ! ! You guys should appreicate that you have VRS. They do provide VRS services for the Deaf community. Is that too much for asking? Why fuss over a little thing!!!
April 18th, 2008 7:04 am
@W. David Samuelsen,
You’ve misunderstood what “closed directory” meant - you’re once again misunderstanding the petition. I am advocating a 10 digit telephone number system. What could have you confused is when I need to connect with a Sorenson device, I need an IP address. This is because I don’t have a VP200 with a Sorenson phone number. With an open directory based on real telephone numbers, I would be able to call any device.
I deleted a couple comments bashing you calling you full of baloney. I deleted them because they are not related to the petition. I can see that you’ve misunderstood twice and your discussions aren’t contributing productively to this thread.
@Someone who actually understands this issue
Can you email me? I’d love to videophone to discover more. Sorenson uses fake telephone numbers — which isn’t the system we want. Moreover they’ve refused to open their directory upon FCC’s requirement. Finally Sorenson, because of its 80 to 90% VRS call monopoly, tells you that they have a large user base. I want all VRS companies to share one directory that is 10 digit real telephone numbers, and chose Sorenson for two reasons 1) to make the most impact 2) we cannot stop using VRS altogether. Many of us depend on it. So meanwhile we are boycotting we can continue using VRS for important functions.
April 18th, 2008 7:05 am
No. You don’t really understand. I read your message. I realize you’re very slick in shifting the damaging waters elsewhere. The key to this issue is empowering CHOICES! Many don’t realize they have choices. Regardless, one shouldn’t be monopolizing from people the choice of realizing true FREEDOM. Simple, look up http://www.BobDaniels.com and raise the flag of the U.S. of America at your home. Do whatever that irks a certain all-time apologist, fascist and some more from the land of the dirty Salt Lake City, Utah!
April 18th, 2008 7:07 am
@Stupid Deaf People
That’s a good point. However, Sorenson and other VRS companies are given money by the federal government — and that is exactly who Sorenson has ignored.
April 18th, 2008 7:13 am
“as far as I know,…” This is a weak statement. “…the other companies…” Who are they? “…are ready to design and implement an interoperable system.” When? before Dec. 2008?
April 18th, 2008 7:19 am
I’ll try to contact all the VRS companies and find out if they are ready and willing to implement an interoperable system. They should because FCC has required that of Sorenson. My feeling is when Sorenson is ready to open it, the other companies will be ready to follow in their footstep.
Here’s some VRS companies: Sprint Relay, HOVRS, SnapVRS, Viable, CAC, CSDVRS
April 18th, 2008 7:28 am
So you said Sorenson is not “ready and willing to implement an interoperable system”? What if they are. I m pretty sure Sorenson is willing to do so.
April 18th, 2008 7:33 am
@umm, Sorenson refused for several years. FCC required them to open it and they still are refusing. Why? I don’t know - it’s beyond me.
April 18th, 2008 7:42 am
Boycotting the ONLY company who uses phone numbers for their users in order to make others follow suit just doesn’t make sense to me. Why not simply boycott all the other companies who are NOT doing it. Don’t you think that would be more effective??
It has been my experience that the Deaf community is a very private community and benefit greatly from not having all their infomation available for the public. I personally have to make a special request to not have my phone number listed in the phone books. Once you are in the directory, that is when telemarketers start using it to their advantage. Why not just give your VP number/ip adress to individuals you want calling you. I guess I don’t understand what the problem is.
April 18th, 2008 7:45 am
Once a beehive, always a beehive. Ive had to deal with sorenson folks for a long time only to get letters from their lawyers.
This announcement offers vindication to my cries of the past that fell on deaf eyes.
Hopes this petition here opens up those deaf eyes for a change.
Richard
April 18th, 2008 7:50 am
@weffer, we’re not asking them to publish their numbers. “Open the Directory” in this sense means we want all VRS companies to share a 10 digit telephone number system where I can call all VP devices regardless of the provider.
April 18th, 2008 8:23 am
Tayler:
The FCC has no jurisdiction over VP to VP calls.
What the FCC told Sorenson to do in the past was to open their VPs to other relay companies and they complied with that. The FCC never told Sorenson to open up their database of 10 digit phone numbers, contrary to what you are asserting here.
April 18th, 2008 8:31 am
I want to let you all know how the friend of mine express on Sorenson’s issue. He spoke from bottom of his heart. You should watch his video!
Click here and watch this video
April 18th, 2008 9:09 am
If you’re not happy with Sorenson, why not use i711 or any other internet VRS? That’s simple.
April 18th, 2008 9:40 am
@Stupid Deaf People
Their VRS service is not what I have a problem with. The issue here is I should have a real ten digit phone number and be able to call any VP.
Everyone, never thought this comment thread would reach 70 comments. There’s certainly interest in this topic. This post has been visited 1,351 times. 51 petition signatures have been confirmed. I will take steps to ensure that your signature count for something.
April 18th, 2008 10:01 am
Tayler is actually on target here. The preferred course of action for companies within an industry is to regulate each other without federal government intervention. I worked in relay for many years prior to my recent retirement and we have had friendly discussions with other companies about cooperating and implementing an interoperable numbering system. The wrench in our gears? Sorenson.
Because Sorenson has refused to join in the dialogue with any of us, we have no choice but to allow the FCC to regulate us.
April 18th, 2008 10:24 am
To Someone who understands…
You’re right, FCC has not ordered Sorenson yet to make sure their number system is compatible with other numbering system.
Why should the FCC have to do this? Sorenson should do it right now. I heard from other folks that Sorenson is trying to buy time by making things more complicated (requiring red tape, etc. etc.).
Any cell phone user can call another cell phone user using phone number–easy. Doesn’t matter if they are same customer or different customer under Verizon or AT&T or whatever.
VP users should call other VP user using phone number easily. Hasn’t happened yet! Why? Simple! Sorenson won’t make their system connect to other networks. Discriminatory!
Sorenson wants to wait until FCC orders them. Unacceptable.
Sorenson should do this NOW! “Open Directory” means making possible for any VP user to call another VP user using phone number! Don’t wait for FCC!
OPEN DIRECTORY SORENSON! Stop wasting time Sorenson!
April 18th, 2008 11:06 am
If FCC hasn’t ordered Sorenson to ensure their number system is compatible with others, what order did FCC give Sorenson?
Keep them coming, Admirer.
April 18th, 2008 11:16 am
FCC is now asking for ideas on how to make a number system work for everyone by dec 31 2008. There are, if I understand right, several proposals on how to make this happen–but NOTHING from Sorenson! They’re just waffling and trying to postpone whole thing.
Sorenson should do right thing and set up numbering system NOW without waiting for FCC to decide what to do.
April 18th, 2008 11:19 am
Why is FCC taking so long to decide? They took immediate action with the VOIP order. Why don’t they just apply similar requirements?
April 18th, 2008 2:13 pm
From what I’m reading here Tayler, we shoudn’t be boycotting Sorenson. What you should have done is tell everyone to send a letter to FCC and insist on our desire to have the 10-digit number effective as soon as possible. Your approach reminds me of the crab theory that keeps playing out in the deaf community making us all look rather stupid!
April 18th, 2008 2:44 pm
@factsplease
We’ve done that. We have several groups (NAD, TDI etc) who’ve sent in their comments to FCC which were disregarded by Sorenson. This is why I am leading a grassroots campaign. FCC needs to hear from the consumers. By a petition and boycott, we make the most impact.
April 18th, 2008 5:18 pm
I am working in this field - basically each IP address is ‘masked’ or ‘given’ a virtual telephone number (not a real telephone number) as it is easier to remember a telephone number than an IP address and more important in some parts of the country you do not have a static (fixed) IP address which means each time you switch on your VP you get a new IP address which is bothersome. This ‘virtual’ telephone number is under the control of the service which provided the VP - in this case Sorenson - as they have a LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) server that allocates these virtual telephone numbers for VPs and those supplied by the service ONLY.
Now what this petition is about is to open up this and cross-linking each LDAP server with other VP service providers under an inter-company agreement or through a second and national LDAP server which collects all VPs logged on and ensuring a common telephone numbering system.
Look up ENUM http://www.enum.org/information/faq.cfm) which gives out more information on this subject.
Hope this helps to clarify this issue. If you need I can do a video response - need to set up webcam at this end! - let me know….
April 20th, 2008 1:18 pm
I’ve signed the petition and switched over to Viable Vision. I’ll also look into whether if I can send comments to the FCC.. I hope it is not too late!