Fcc plan cut vrs

Dennis said:
Sorenson (the person, NOT the business!) gave the money so that people LIKE YOU would go "oh good heart! I'll trust them, they gave money to deaf!" That's EXACTLY what they wanted. What if they gave money to another school for an interpreter organization there, like in Utah instead? You wouldn't be as "oooh, good heart!" no matter how much they spent. So they're riding on people's love and loyalty to Gallaudet and transferring that loyalty to Sorenson VRS now. It was never "let's make the community better" it was always "let's make more money and get more profit!"
Click to expand...

OIC. So now you know what I think about their actions. And you know their motives when they invest money in interpreter training programs all over the country, not just Gally. Tell me how you get this tremendous skill to read minds. I thought (this not mind-reading, i tell you) it was clever thinking about: where future employees/interpreters come from if ITP keep shutting down? We have money (from current business profit-there that word again! shoot!) we donate to help finance those program. Hope we get some of those interpreters! Hope they eventually good enough to work for our business. Our customers only want best! Wait and see.
Apparently you know what is included in consideration for rate. oh wait, you said your opinion, not know. Maybe you should find out. I did. Not included. There is a long list of not included. Check the website. check their own filings.
 
lilbugsb3 said:
Are you sure about this?

tell me why did Sorenson donated 6 millions for new building at Gallaudet which named to SLCC?
Click to expand...

No, it wasnt donated. Sorenson bought a property there and then made the contract with gallaudet which any vrs industries CANNOT advertising or carry their vp device around in the campus and that building is still belong to sorenson, not gallaudet. So, it has nothing to do with gally until 2011 or 2012 and then gallaudet not going to renew the contract, building still remain belong to sorenson.

Im MD resident and goes to gallaudet several times, just fyi.
 
dark said:
No, it wasnt donated. Sorenson bought a property there and then made the contract with gallaudet which any vrs industries CANNOT advertising or carry their vp device around in the campus and that building is still belong to sorenson, not gallaudet. So, it has nothing to do with gally until 2011 or 2012 and then gallaudet not going to renew the contract, building still remain belong to sorenson.

Im MD resident and goes to gallaudet several times, just fyi.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time getting my around you saying that Sorenson bought the land the building is sitting on within the Gallaudet campus. Besides, that 6 mil is only a part of the total cost for that building.
 
Tousi said:
I have a hard time getting my around you saying that Sorenson bought the land the building is sitting on within the Gallaudet campus. Besides, that 6 mil is only a part of the total cost for that building.
Click to expand...

correct, my apologize for blur message.
 
why should WE as customers tell FCC what we think of their rates?!?! We don't get them at all! It should be the VRS companies, not us as customers, to tell FCC why the rates are fair or not. They should have their data open to FCC and explain why it's reasonable or unreasonable.
 
netrox said:
why should WE as customers tell FCC what we think of their rates?!?! We don't get them at all! It should be the VRS companies, not us as customers, to tell FCC why the rates are fair or not. They should have their data open to FCC and explain why it's reasonable or unreasonable.
Click to expand...

It is public so all stakeholders and others interested can offer ideas, generally (not just re: the rates), about the VRS system from top to bottom.
 
netrox said:
why should WE as customers tell FCC what we think of their rates?!?! We don't get them at all! It should be the VRS companies, not us as customers, to tell FCC why the rates are fair or not. They should have their data open to FCC and explain why it's reasonable or unreasonable.
Click to expand...

The FCC doesn't use the service, so only has financial and regulatory interest. Ignoring customer base is only reason to drastic cut rate for most popular and successful company. If fcc gets to set limit to profit margin, why should any company compete for customers?
 
netrox said:
Really? Why should you get it for free? Hearing people pay for their phone bills and YOUR service which most have never used.

It's ALWAYS about FREE FREE FREE.

Seriously, I just cannot believe how spoiled you deaf people are.
Click to expand...




LOOK WE USED TO BE CALL "DUMB AND MUTE" IF YOU NOT LIKE IT THEN GO AWAY WE TRY SAVE VRS SO WE CAN KEEP OUR BARRIER DOWN TO MAKE US HAVE ACCESS TO THE JOB , famnily , and bussiness. without vrs we are in a pit hole ! i bet u not like to be in darkness
 
aslrocks58 said:
The FCC doesn't use the service, so only has financial and regulatory interest. Ignoring customer base is only reason to drastic cut rate for most popular and successful company. If fcc gets to set limit to profit margin, why should any company compete for customers?
Click to expand...

The FCC gets to set the limit for ONE YEAR. Guess what companies can do if they want to be more profitable during that year? Cut costs and become MORE EFFICIENT. That's it. But they WILL be profitable. The only question will be, is it enough profit for some greedy head honchos without cutting back? Or will they try to figure out ways to streamline things so that it's more automated, which costs less and thus saves money? Or will they go the even worse route, which is to cut people because labor costs are what's the most expensive and easiest to cut?

We should be telling the VRS companies to be MORE EFFICIENT instead of asking the FCC to give them MORE PROFIT.
 
netrox said:
Really? Why should you get it for free? Hearing people pay for their phone bills and YOUR service which most have never used.

It's ALWAYS about FREE FREE FREE.

Seriously, I just cannot believe how spoiled you deaf people are.
Click to expand...

Like Biker say, We do pay.. it is not 100% free. We pay for the internet and cellphone (for text messaging, it is not easy to use ANY phone when we are out) . If we stuck with TTY, we have to pay twice as much if we are living with hearing because inability to tell if a incoming phone call is TTY or not. What's luxury to the hearing is a need to the deaf. I just wish our needs is the same cost as hearing's people needs.

Hearing people telephone are hearing people's responsibility because it is designed just for them. It is not my responsibility unless they make it accessible to me.
 
Amazing!! How may deaf and hoh are under the spell and scare tactics of these VRS providers. Wake up and get witht he program. We all pay taxes, but, wouldn't it be nice if some of that money would actually come back to us. I see people refering to the ADA and so for. The thruth is that the act is not only for deaf and hoh, it covers all americans with dissabilities. Why are we ore special than other groups. The equipment that we use (vp-200) is simply just a tool for the provider to keep you down. I for one do not let my dissability be a crutch nor an excuse. And also I will not be kept under their cluthches. Cut the rates and have the providers get innovative.
 
Back
Top