Released on June 24, this FCC order is a milestone, representing a significant victory, for deaf consumers using videophones.
“We therefore require, consistent with the procedures set forth below, Internet-based TRS providers to assign Internet-based TRS users NANP telephone numbers. We further require Internet-based TRS providers to stop issuing “proxy” or “alias” numbers no later than December 31, 2008.”
Sorenson, as well as any other video relay providers, cannot give out fake numbers as they have for years, beyond 2008. If Sorenson follows the FCC order, this will mean the end of their closed directory!
FCC also requires phone number portability:
“The record is clear that the ability to port numbers (1) from one Internet-based TRS provider to another, and (2) between Internet-based TRS providers and other entities subject to LNP (such as carriers and interconnected VoIP providers) is a priority in any numbering plan for Internet-based TRS.”
If you choose to use a different VRS provider or device, FCC requires that you be given the option to keep your assigned phone number. Providers cannot prevent you from moving your phone number to another provider.
FCC also is requiring local phone numbers:
“In the interest of functional equivalency, and consistent with the recommendations of the ATIS Report, we find that Internet-based TRS users should be assigned geographically appropriate NANP numbers, as happens today for hearing users.”
FCC recognizes that deaf videophone callers had been since denied the same service granted to hearing callers. Instead of giving 800 phone numbers, or even regional phone numbers that does not appropriately match the caller’s geographical location, VRS providers are required to hand out local phone numbers, or if a such number is not available, the number should be “reasonably close to the Internet-based TRS user’s rate center”.
Finally, FCC has struck an order requiring that E911 be supported by this new system:
“As of December 31, 2008, we require that an Internet-based TRS provider must transmit all 911 and E911 calls, as well as a call back number, the name of the relay provider, the CA’s identification number, and the caller’s Registered Location for each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller’s Registered Location.”
If this order is carried out by all providers, it will be at long last functional equivalency for all deaf videophone callers!
Sign the Petition! Your e-mail address is for validation purposes ONLY and will not be sold to or shared with anyone. Scout's honor!
Woo! This is great news!
Perfect! This is good news!!! Yay!!!
Great! About time. It shows that Sorenson do not have power.
Now, I hope to see that any members (hearing CODA) buy Sorenson devices so they can communicate with their deaf parents Can we petition to FCC?
Yayy!!
@janmws, I don’t think it’s within FCC jurisdiction to force providers to make available their products to anyone including relatives of deaf people.
As I wrote previously, I believe Sorenson isn’t doing this because it does not make business sense for them to enter product sales. These callers would not use VRS services.
Oh I see. Sorenson did not developed devices with their money. It was FCC’s money. So we can ask FCC to give out devices to any members (hearing CODS, etc. ) so they can communicate with their deaf family members. How can we start the petition Thanks.
YES!!
About the frisking time!
@janmws, or alternatively, the relatives of deaf people could purchase a videophone. There should be more coming into the market soon. Viable’s VPAD is amongst the first that’s being sold.
This is a big victory for the Deaf and HoH people!
The ultimate question:
If for example Verizon gave me the phone number of (801) 123-4567 and the relay service system can’t assign me (801) 123-4567 then all of this is no good.
Mark my words—ten digit numbers will be obsolete in the near future replaced by universal-use screen names and other similar very user-friendly provisions.
@snickering
I disagree for the reason hearing callers have individual numbers for each their landline and cell phones.
We’ll see how soon 10-digit phone numbers become obsolete. I’d say not any time soon.
10-digit phone numbers wont be obsolete anytime soon but I wouldn’t be suprised to see more area code splits in near future.
Yea, if the 10 digits local area would runs out in my area code, they would have to create new area code splitting into largest metro area. My city have a single area code (inside city area), if they’re runs out then they can create split area code for North area and south area within city.
Tayler,
What I meant is a person can have one or more ten-digit numbers and use one of the numbers (let’s say his house telephone number) as his preferred ten-digit number for his videophone bringing about functional equivalency.
This means he/she shouldn’t be forced to settle for another number for the videophone. This goes against streamlining uses for one ten-digit number. Another phone number is akin to growing another leg.
Set aside the above I’m aware of each cell phone having different phone numbers. Sure, one can ask for his cell phone number to also function as his cell videophone number (think iPhone 3 or 4 someday). True streamlining.
I dread saying “my wife has a different house phone number” I wish for one hearing caller to call the house and whoever picks up will be talking (either him on Videophone or her on voice) even if both uses different protocols. This is purest of functional equivalency.
I agree however this FCC order is a stride in functional equivalency. It brings forth greater convenience and improved access to emergency services.
Hi Taylor
you can see what news about GoAmerica & ATT are working on 10-digit Im sure FCC are include
See the news from Deaf Northwest News
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Deaf_Northwest/message/5578
:::snickering::: quote “I dread saying “my wife has a different house phone number” I wish for one hearing caller to call the house and whoever picks up will be talking (either him on Videophone or her on voice) even if both uses different protocols. This is purest of functional equivalency.”
To answer this issue- it will not happen. Reason because if hearing person dial the 10 digit, it will automatically connect to VRS and your videophone at same time. You will be stuck with two number regardless anything. You will need to choose a number specifically for your wife and another number for yourself.
For those such as CODA’s that are interested in purchasing VP’s, wait until August 2008 when CSDVRS.com launches the sale of 3 new different styles of VP’s to choose from. I promise you will be amazed and will not regret it one bit!
Be honest with you. You all are goofy! Sorenson is full support of FCC decision. You miss important point that Ed’s Alert already explained what is going on. Be research more before you jump in the water!
It’ll be nice if my existing house phone number provided by Verizon works as my house Videophone number for both hearing and deaf to easily call me now and then. It’ll be nice if my existing cell phone number provided by Verizon works as my cell videophone number (someday) for both hearing and deaf to easily call me now and then. These are purest of real functional equivalency. Keyword: streamlined number.
@JJ - of course Sorenson says they support it, they have to.
Not to say so would instantly turn into a Public Relations crisis. People need to understand Sorenson’s actions in the past. When it comes to real action, they haven’t been supportive of FCC decisions. See one of my posts: “Breaking: Sorenson files request with FCC to stall”. You cannot argue with the document Sorenson filed with FCC.
Fact check:
Sorenson developed the video technology about the same time that VRS started. At first there was only a Windows program (NetMeetiung) and the Sorenson video phone technology. The video quality on NetMeeting was not very good.
Sorenson entered into a licensing agreement with D-Link. D-Link made the VP100 for Sorenson and used the same technology to make the Eye-2-Eye video phone. The Sorenson technology was critical to developing VRS as a nationwide service that the FCC was willing to pay for.
The FCC decided that VRS should be “free-market” competition. Therefore, Sorenson had to develop business practices that would pay for their development costs for the video technology.
Like Vito Corleone said, “it’s just business”.
If anyone wants to be mad or unhappy, be mad at the FCC for making VRS “free market” competition. All other critical public services - like police, fire, 911 - are controlled with single vendor. Sorenson only responded to the market that the FCC created.
Other companies - like Sprint with partner CSD - got into VRS early and invested a LOT of money to develop and spread VRS to all the Deaf Community.
All VRS users should be very grateful to the pioneers - Ed Bosson, Sprint with CSD, and Sorenson - for making VRS available for all of us. We should not criticize Sorenson for trying to make money under the “free market” rules that the FCC created.
Now the rules will change. We will have 10 digit phone numbers that work with all vendors.
Is this “good”? Some ways, yes. More freedom to use mover vendors and to call other kinds of video phones.
Some ways, no. If there are more vendors, then there is more competition and less “net profit”. Remember that the “net profit” pays for research and development of new equipment and faster internet lines. If there are 20 vendors splitting all the “net profit”, then NONE of the vendors can afford to spend millions for new video technologies.
So, yes, we win more freedom and more people we can call direct and we win better emergency services. BUT, we lose the next generation of “newer, better, faster” video phones …
Like the wise man said when the farmer found the White Stallion. “maybe good, maybe bad. We’ll see.”
PS - No, I do not work for Sorenson. Before I retired, I worked for a competitor and Yes, Sorenson took business away from me.
If I want to be mad, I have good reason to be mad at Sorenson. I am not mad at Sorenson; I think the FCC should make VRS a critical service open to competitive bid based on Quality, not profit - just like all the state TTY relay services.
That is my three cents. (jp)