Telephone Number System for VRS
9 06 2008All…
Wow - there is an intense lobbying by VRS providers and Number Service companies to the FCC that their "proposals" are best.
Interesting point by NeuStar that "path" of the video phone distributed video relay service will go thru even if another VRS provider is chosen as a default is seen as a virtue; that is, has added benefits if this is done. NeuStar and HOVRS/GA proposals meet that.
This is an interesting powerpoint comparison.
Makes case for NeuStar and HOVRS/GA Proposals focusing on ATIS recommendations.
For those who want to read long list of comments, go to this website, on right column click to "search for filed comment" #1 type "03-123" and on #7 type dates from "03/01/2008" and type to "06/08/2008" and you will get a long list of comments from various individuals, companies, etc.
If you are curious which proposals I support. What I look for is what is best for consumer; by that, I mean consumers should be able to have all the features of telephone system like video mail, caller id, etc., and after that I look for what is most seamless, least infrastructure changes, and minimum federal regulations added. My vote would go to NeuStar and HOVRS/GA proposals. On the paper, CSDVRS’s ONS proposal looks good, but in practice requires lot of changes - substantive changes would be needed for VRS providers and the FCC would have to create new regulations. In addition, I would want a system that will flow with the emerging future technologies, NeuStar best meets that need and so does HOVRS/GA.
NeuStar proposals emulate VoIP system which is carrier-based, HOVRS/GA very similar except that one central number database service (in this case, they used DASH as an example), and ONS starts from scratch - actually the 800 number that CSDVRS give to VRS users is based on ONS technology.
Also, we would want majority of VRS providers and other number database service companies willing to cooperate, and that seems to be either NeuStar and HOVRS/GA.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed B
This is a great article. I believe you spoke to Houston Deaf Seniors of Texas about this phone number. I’m working on the July’s Newsletter and will put some of this in it. That way, other Deaf people will be able to read about this. Thanks!
Ed
Thanks for sharing this information with us.
Would you feel free to share your thoughts of Bob Daniel’s recently vlog regarding uri vs ip addy?
David
[...] Ed’s Telecom Alert Good to listen from Ed of founder of VRS. You read Ed’s Telecom Alert report. Ed?s Telecom Alert ? Telephone Number System for VRS [...]
David B, Bob Daniel got it right. URI is the way to go to get features like caller id, video mail, etc. URI will offer opportunity for VRS providers to "compete" for VRS users. To strictly go by only IP address and not go thru URI will make it difficult to offer features. Also, security is best with URI - as all calls, both vp to vp and VRS calls will go thru VRS provider thus will be protected by their firewall. Fraud calls will be minimized by URI cuz everyone would need to select their preference for VRS provider and VRS providers will need to do verification that the person signing up is who they really are. With IP address, it would be nearly impossible to do that thus scammers would have a field day. eyes open and thumbs up, Ed
Ed
Good Comments. Good rationale. Good safeguards. However, I am apprehensive of being in a position to select which is the best solution simply because I dont have the expertise, knowledge, and access to all information. Are these proposals exposing ALL information? Is there any hidden agenda among these proposals that we, inexperienced people, should be aware of before casting our preferences.
For example, are all car owners familiar with the engines? How many gallons of gas in tank? How many cylinders? Impact of cylinders on performances?
Because of these unanswered questions, we, the consumers, should tell the FCC what we, the consumers, want as consumers.
We need to remember that, in this setting, there is an extremely unusual situation that needs to be looked into before any decision is to be made. All videophones are being made by VRS providers. Let me repeat…VRS providers manufacture their own videophones. Videophones are being programmed by VRS companies.
For example, all VP100 and VP200 have SVRS in the listing and it cannot be removed. It is on the top of the contact list. It cannot be lowered. It has an icon on the main menu. It cannot be removed.
Should SVRS be authorized to provide numbers and customers want to switch to another VRS, how will this be done without wasting time and energy by trying to bypass the VRS provider’s manufactured restrictions?
Have these proposals proposed solutions to these issues above?
In closing, we, the consumers, as Ed would say, need to keep our eyes OPEN…proactively!
Sonny
Hi Ed,
It is good to see you in return from the hiatus. Congratulations on your receiving the honorary degree from Gallaudet University last month!
I would love to use this system to identify the caller ID, preventable from the scammers, and direct call for hearing people to contact me. To my knowledge, CSDVRS and IP-Relay provided me these numbers for hearing people to call me. Some people hung on me because they believe the VRS that are such as telemarketers. I understand Sorenson add new feature for direct call. Do you know any of these VRS outlets that provide the same approaches?
Nick Vera
As long as it does not require ip address, I will support any companies that will give 10 dig. numbers without following ip address.
I want local numbers, not 800 numbers.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520012409
I have not read any of the proposals yet but wanted to say something about comment by ed above on URI vs IP. URI are translated to IP anyways - it is the protocol that we need to look at. For example using HTTP, sometimes the hostname is put in the header in the request. Using URI alone won’t help identify the caller or prevent scammer. But I haven’t read the proposals yet so I may be missing something.
One great way to verify caller is to use something called client verification that is part of HTTPS protocol. A caller could go to a VRS site to sign up where caller will receive a certificate assigned to the caller. This certificate is then installed on caller’s computer in the store (for example Key Chain in OS X or Certificate Store in Windows) where the browser can load it when VRS web server requests for one. If a scam call is made, VRS will know exactly who did it by checking the certificate used. But of course this depends on how VRS verifies the caller’s identity in the first place!
Always remember, security is as strong as the weakest link. Also obscurity is not security
As a bonus to certificates, all VRS could be using a common trusted certificate service to create caller certificates. This means certificate created by one VRS is easily usable by other VRS-es. Tons of information can be inserted into certificate such as caller’s phone number.
bob
[...] http://www.edsalert.com/2008/06/09/telephone-number-system-for-vrs/ [...]
Nick,
If I understand the proposals especially the NeuStar and Dash right. VRS providers will be able to offer features that you mentioned. We deaf and hoh will be able to choose VRS providers on the basis of features offered.
On the telemarketeer. It is going to be an issue. Even though, Ten Digit Phone Number will greatly minimize the scammed calls, many businesses because they have been “burned” by the scammers, will still hang up on ANY relay calls. So what is needed? Probably massive advertising to business that because of new TN, scammers will be minimized will need to be done. Also, maybe educate deaf/hoh on how to utilize VRS or IP by using different kind of announcement; example: First tell Relay Operator or Video Interpreter NOT to announce standard introduction, instead use my announcement “Hi this is Ed Bosson calling you through xyzVRS. May I speak to a person knowledgeable about light and tough tent?” Or Or maybe not even use xyzvrs if u get a very good video interpreter.
Ed B
RT Administrator
Bob,
Essentially all the proposals will provide REAL telephone number (TN) of which either IP or URI will ride on. So that means the responsiblity to verify the deaf/hon rests on VRS or IP providers. There are different ways to verify; one of verification procedure is via post card to the physical address and ask the person to use info on post card to either call or email or log in. This is just one example. Also, firewalls will be at the VRS providers so they can help protect y’all. Bottom line is as u said security needs to be where deaf/hon are comfortable with.
Ed