Purple upset FCC says 'NO'

Comcast is doing illegal and not following FCC rules even though there is no rule under Internet act or whatever. So FCC took action against comcast only. Right now I don't see why purple is concerning about FCC taking action against vrs or whatever because there is nothing going on. Let us know if happens.
 
Cousin Vinny said:
Actually, there are two consumer petitions;
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ConsumerApplicationReview.pdf
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ConsumersRuleClarification.pdf
Click to expand...

Cousin Vinny

seen your posts on Kelby's blog

me refer CONSUMER person compliant not from organization
why dont YOU file a comment or compliant there?
see two new complaint filed today in fcc docket one is shown here

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=7020243546

Proceeding: 03-123 Type Code: CL
Date Received/Adopted: 10/28/09 Date Released/Denied:
Document Type: COMPLAINT Total Pages: 1
File Number/Community: DA/FCC Number:
Filed on Behalf of: xxxxxxx
Filed By:
Attorney/Author Name: Date Posted Online: 10/28/09
Complete Mailing Address:
 
Cousin Vinny said:
In context of Purple's petition, a multi-party conference call is done via VRS.

An example of a VRS multi-party conference call; A deaf person would call a special number and be connected to a VRS agent. This VRS agent would then interpret the conference call. Another Deaf person calls the same number and gets his/her own VRS agent handling the same conference call. Add other Deaf people, hearing people to the conference call, etc. and we have a multi-party conference call, with Deaf participants having their own VRS agents.
Click to expand...

right VERY EXPENSIVE and ABUSIVE

if fcc permit soresnon is damn ready to roll out
 
DefMATRIXense said:
First, you need a great or T1 connection $100 or up a month Second, there is a lot of expensive video conference devices and hearing people are paying for it. Deaf people are FUCKING lucky to get video conference such as MVP for FREE which FCC paid for it. How did FCC get money coming from? It's TAXPAYERS which is US.
Click to expand...

DefMATRIXense said:
Correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

you wrong

hint here think node as vp
 
qwerty123 said:
replace outside node with a vp what u see there? host is middle node
Click to expand...

you are making no sense at all. What the heck it had to do with nodes with conference call? That hint makes no sense at all with deaf to deaf conference calls.
 
Cousin Vinny said:
In context of Purple's petition, a multi-party conference call is done via VRS.

An example of a VRS multi-party conference call; A deaf person would call a special number and be connected to a VRS agent. This VRS agent would then interpret the conference call. Another Deaf person calls the same number and gets his/her own VRS agent handling the same conference call. Add other Deaf people, hearing people to the conference call, etc. and we have a multi-party conference call, with Deaf participants having their own VRS agents.
Click to expand...

beautiful explain!
Purple kelby is hiding this FACT each vrs user has own vrs terp
 
Cousin Vinny said:
In context of Purple's petition, a multi-party conference call is done via VRS.

An example of a VRS multi-party conference call; A deaf person would call a special number and be connected to a VRS agent. This VRS agent would then interpret the conference call. Another Deaf person calls the same number and gets his/her own VRS agent handling the same conference call. Add other Deaf people, hearing people to the conference call, etc. and we have a multi-party conference call, with Deaf participants having their own VRS agents.
.
Click to expand...

Why would FCC refuse to pay for that? Hearing people are involved in your example. That does not seem the same thing as what Purple is talking about.
 
RedWolf said:
For example: In the future, FCC does have the authorities and would tell all VRS to shut down, which it would make them go out of business. How this will affect all deaf callers who uses VP?
Click to expand...

FCC won't shut them down. They can cut funding though. Deaf people would then have to find alternative means of funding it. That's hard, but not impossible. Are we becoming too dependent on the government?
 
dkf747 said:
FCC won't shut them down. They can cut funding though. Deaf people would then have to find alternative means of funding it. That's hard, but not impossible. Are we becoming too dependent on the government?
Click to expand...

right misguided redwolf is fear about shut down will not happen
didnt fcc and state shut down tradition relay service? nope
 
Redwolf... I think you didn't understand completely what Section 255 is all about.

I think the Purple filing is TOTALLY MOOT, and it will be a major disservice for the deaf/hearing needs. to my understanding... if we have 10 deaf callers call in the conference mode... calling to a VRS provider (ahem, purple if you ask) and use 10 of their interpreters to interpret what other interpreters say? I think thats SO FUNNY imagine all of the glossing, mis-interpreting, or whatever that the message will be slewed during the conference call. Interpreters are not the "hearing callers" look at the end points. Deaf-interpreter-deaf, that is not under the TRS concept!

That silly conference call that 10 deaf called in TOOK 10 interpreters AWAY from their actual responsiblity is to interpret the calls between Deaf and Hearing Callers. THAT is DISSERVICE to our needs!

If they want to use the "Functionally equivalent" logic... that only applies to Deaf/Speech Impairment to Hearing. Deaf to Deaf conference call with VRS is NOT FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.

DefMATRIXense.. you are absouletly correct... its very expensive to have conference call system. If we want to use the conference... we chip in from our pocket to have that kind of feature :) not all Hearing folks have that access ;) only those who have the $$$ so that is a CHOICE, not a FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT :)

Gawd, you people who sides on the purple petition are addicted to co-dependence philosphy. Not everything is free ;) you gotta work and earn it!

Enjoy HALLOWEEN ;)
 
pandaatv36 said:
If they want to use the "Functionally equivalent" logic... that only applies to Deaf/Speech Impairment to Hearing. Deaf to Deaf conference call with VRS is NOT FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT.
Click to expand...

:gpost:

call it luxury service
 
qwerty123 said:
me refer CONSUMER person compliant not from organization
why dont YOU file a comment or compliant there?
see two new complaint filed today in fcc docket one is shown here
Click to expand...
I prefer to wait on commenting until the FCC has actually opened the issues for public comment.

Also, how did you find those new comments under docket 03-123? What search engine and URI did you use? I used FCC's docket search engine, but there seemed to be no way for me to limit queries by date, let alone focusing on docket 03-123.
 
Cousin Vinny said:
I prefer to wait on commenting until the FCC has actually opened the issues for public comment.

Also, how did you find those new comments under docket 03-123? What search engine and URI did you use? I used FCC's docket search engine, but there seemed to be no way for me to limit queries by date, let alone focusing on docket 03-123.
Click to expand...

you say same on kelby's blog
 
deafaussie said:
In fact, I had asked one of Sorenson installer and direct to Sorenson themselves and was told that VP-200 does not support conference calls and I wonder where you get this information from. Have you used it.

Show us proof that it worked in Sorenson VP200 please
Click to expand...

My good friend of Sorenson installer told me that Sorenson have video conference calls on VP200 for team meeting only.(not customers) Not needing VRS. That s up to 12 person on multi-party video conference at once.
 
Back
Top