SnapVRS and SIP-enabled videophones

[navyman]

Some of you may recall that Snap Communications tried to break into the VRS business last year, but was stymied by the FCC order in May 2006 which implemented an interoperability rule requiring each VRS provider to allow the equipment of other VRS providers to be able to work on its service before it can be recompensed from the Interstate Relay Fund for its costs related to operating the relay service. SnapVRS's videophone, the Motorola OJO, uses the SIP signalling protocol, whereas the VP-100/200 and D-link videophones use the H.323 standard. Unfortunately, the SIP protocol and H.323 standard are not compatible. This means SnapVRS has not been able to enter into the market until it finds a way to make the Ojo compatible with H.323-enabled videophones.

Although I understand why the FCC made the decision to require interoperability with other VRS services for a variety of reasons, it had the undesireable effect of preventing incompatible alternative technologies from being used by anyone. One major reason why the FCC required interoperability was because one could not put a VP-100 on the same home network as a D-link 1000 unless the consumer had the ability to obtain a 2nd IP address.

However, you could put an OJO on the same network as your VP-100 or D-link 1000 since they do not use the same internet ports to function. What I wish the FCC did with their interoperability rule was to condition it such that if a consumer could have two different types of videophones on the same network, that would be acceptable. The OJO's video advantages (H.264 standard), built-in video mail, SIP-based direct calling capability (meaning no IP addresses to mess with), etc, all are advantages that would have been nice to use.

I believe that Snap Communications is working to set up gateways to make H.323-enabled videophones compatible with their service. It would be nice if all the VRS providers would instead move to videophones that use the SIP signalling protocol and thus make it a lot easier for everyone to call one another.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dennis S.]

It would defeat the whole purpose of the order to add conditions -- that'd be a way out for one company to say, "Hey, I came up with this odd protocol that works only for me, and since I'm special, and this condition applies to me, all of youse who get my phone have to use my relay service only while I pretend to work on making it compatible with everyone else."

No, trust me, if there's a loophole, those companies will do everything they can to exploit it. To YOUR expense. So, if the SIP based VPs can't work with everyone else, maybe they should be working on getting everyone else to work with them, right?

The order should stay as it is and then standards set up by the FCC so everyone has to follow those standards. Right now, the FCC is letting the market set the standards. The market right now is H.323.

 

[navyman]

See next post

 

[navyman]

It would defeat the whole purpose of the order to add conditions -- that'd be a way out for one company to say, "Hey, I came up with this odd protocol that works only for me, and since I'm special, and this condition applies to me, all of youse who get my phone have to use my relay service only while I pretend to work on making it compatible with everyone else."

What was the purpose of the order? From my angle, it was to ensure that a customer would not be limited to just one VRS provider. The interoperability of the hardware was a secondary issue. It is obvious that the genesis for the order was to counteract the monopolization of Sorenson and their proprietary videophones. Unfortunately, the order also had the effect of suppressing incentives for a VRS provider to consider using better videophone technologies to gain an edge in the market.

No, trust me, if there's a loophole, those companies will do everything they can to exploit it. To YOUR expense. So, if the SIP based VPs can't work with everyone else, maybe they should be working on getting everyone else to work with them, right?

As you know, two H.323 enabled videophones cannot exist on the same home network without 2 static IPs involved. However, theoretically, I could have both a SIP-enabled videophone and one H.323 enabled videophone to exist on the home network together. This would meet the original intent of the order, which was to ensure access to more than one VRS provider. Interoperability of hardware is irrelevant.

The order should stay as it is and then standards set up by the FCC so everyone has to follow those standards. Right now, the FCC is letting the market set the standards. The market right now is H.3

Actually, the FCC is NOT letting the market set the standards. When the order has the effect of suppressing R&D investment into new videophone technologies, how can that be construed as market forces per Adam's laissez faire theory? This is a clear example of unintended consequences of governmental regulation. As a deaf consumer, I am not impressed with the current H.323 market. It feels more like dealing with AT&T before the breakup of its monopoly and before deregulation of the telecom industry. In fact, it's more likely that the other VRS providers are AFRAID of VRS technological competition and will settle for the dated H.323 status quo to retain its users.

 

[Taric25]

ISDN Interoprability

Why doesn't the FCC go after CSD for allowing their users to use ISDN, proprietary to them?

The FCC shouldn't go after SnapVRS for using SIP, the same way it doesn't go after CSD for using ISDN. It should go after Motorola to make their Ojo interoperable.

Besides, i711VRS uses proprietary VRS based in Flash.

 

[navyman]

Why doesn't the FCC go after CSD for allowing their users to use ISDN, proprietary to them?

Are you referring to CSD's ISDN connectivity within the scope of the Federal Relay Service (FRS) contract? If so, as you stated in another thread, FRS is not covered by FCC regulations, and therefore is not answerable to the FCC. I don't believe CSD offers ISDN connectivity to the general public for non-Federal purpose calls. I've tried SprintVRS's and CSDVRS's listed ISDN phone number in the past and it never worked.

The FCC shouldn't go after SnapVRS for using SIP, the same way it doesn't go after CSD for using ISDN. It should go after Motorola to make their Ojo interoperable.

One could argue that SnapVRS could simply offer their own H.323-enabled devices and thus be compliant with the order. However, I suspect that Snap Communications committed to buying a boatload of OJOs, so they are financially compelled to make it work. I'm not sure that the FCC can point fingers at Motorola because the Telecommunications Act requires technological devices to be usable by persons with disabilities, not make them interoperable. The OJO, as it is currently produced, is technically usable for VRS purposes, but it is NOT regulatorily usable thanks to the FCC's narrowly defined interoperability ruling, hence the problem originally explained in the 1st post of this thread. Before we can intelligently discuss the role of SIP-based videophones in the VRS market, we need to first understand WHY the interoperability rule was put into place...what was the FCC's intent?

Besides, i711VRS uses proprietary VRS based in Flash.

This point further illustrates/suggests that the FCC's reasoning behind the interoperability ruling was to ensure that standalone videophones did not impair the ability of a Deaf person to contact more than 1 VRS provider. The VP-100 would not let a person call HOVRS, and the same person could not add a D-link VP to his network to be able to do so (or make the switch easily without risking configuration issues). Furthermore, since it can't be assumed that every deaf person has a computer, it is safer to shape such an important rule to cover the default VRS access mode...a standalone videophone.

 

[REB]

backward compatibility

What are your thoughts?[/QUOTE]


Actually what is ideal is that the FCC should adopt a video standard (i.e. H.323) for VRS but allow proprietary video conf program between same video products/programs where they also have backward compatibility to H.323 if go to a different video mode. This will ensure that interoperability be maintained, yet allow VRS provider use their own proprietary video mode. By this way, VRS providers can compete for customers by saying their products are best yet if customers do not want their product, then can compete for use of VRS becuz of the interoperability regulation. I hope I make sense ;-]

FCC should on a periodic basis check to see which video standard is best and then adopt that as a video standard for VRS. H.264, for example, is clearly the better one and should now be adopted as a video standard for VRS. FCC, of course, should give VRS providers plenty of time to change over.

eyes open & thumbs up, Ed

 

[Taric25]

Agree to VRS video regulation

I totally agree. We should not be stuck with one mode, however, it's been years since anyone invented a videophone, who hasn't already had one on the market.

For example, the VP–100 is how old? Sorenson's VP–200 isn't a groundbreaking difference, since it hasn't opened up new avenues of communication. It's just the same think with a bueaty upgrade.

D–Link's i2eye hasn't really gone anywhere either. The DVC–1000 was revolutionary for it's time, and and VRS providers continue to destribute it. The DVC–1100 a gave us wireless (though no VRS provider destributes it), and the DVC–2000 removed the need for a TV (though no VRS provider destributes it, and only Hamilton VRS allows for VCOoIP), but D–Link never realeased a compact "DVC–2100". Now that would be a great product: a WiFi videophone you can carry with you. If we had such a thing, VRS users could use it anywhere with WiFi. If intergrated with PCMA, people could use EV–DO providers (Sprint & Verizon) for video cell phones! Unfortunately, no such technology exists, and it doesn't look anything like that is on the horizon.

The Motorola OJO didn't seem to bring a lot to the market, although I can't say much, since I've never used one.

I've never used an ISDN videophone either, although I can't say they've presented anything groundbreaking either.

What would I like to see?: true videoconfrencing. I'd like a videophone to be able to make a 4–way videocall, like Sightspeed uses with Lifelinks VRS, so VRS with VCO users can talk to each other, each with their own interpreter. Of course, I'd want all current videophone features integrated into new videophone technology.

 

[navyman]

REB, thanks for contributing to the thread, and welcome, as I noted this was your first post.

Actually what is ideal is that the FCC should adopt a video standard (i.e. H.323) for VRS but allow proprietary video conf program between same video products/programs where they also have backward compatibility to H.323 if go to a different video mode. This will ensure that interoperability be maintained, yet allow VRS provider use their own proprietary video mode. By this way, VRS providers can compete for customers by saying their products are best yet if customers do not want their product, then can compete for use of VRS becuz of the interoperability regulation. I hope I make sense ;-]

The sad fact of H.323 standard is that it does not work at all with the current phone numbering system (NANC) used in the USA to assign specific phone numbers using the internet. The closest thing is using a LDAP directory (which Sorenson has, but which is proprietary and closed to other providers). On the other hand, the SIP protocol does play nicely within the NANC rules (this is what Vonage and other VOIP providers are able to do) and the only VRS vendor to offer it is SnapVRS. As stated in my original post, SnapVRS has been working to set up gateways to comply with the interoperability ruling (that is, to make their OJOs backward compatible with H.323 devices). The problem with that is that this leads to degradation of quality that H.323 is well-known for (i.e., H.263 lower video quality; higher video bandwidth requirements). It's like buying a nice plasma TV but being forced to use RCA or RF connections as opposed to HDMI for video quality.

FCC should on a periodic basis check to see which video standard is best and then adopt that as a video standard for VRS. H.264, for example, is clearly the better one and should now be adopted as a video standard for VRS. FCC, of course, should give VRS providers plenty of time to change over.

It's too bad that the FCC does not allow reimbursement of R&D costs for newer technologies. I believe this is the exact reason why H.323 with H.263 video codec is the status quo today. None of the vendors have the incentive to upgrade without regulatory influence. What I think would be more effective is for the FCC to establish an order to require VRS providers to make their services accessible with videophones that readily can work within the current NANC system like Vonage does for VOIP with their analog adapters and buy-in into rate centers. Without FCC support, this idea will never come to fruition. What is cool about the OJO is that it already incorporates SIP and H.264, allowing both NANC-compatible phone numbering and high quality video over low-bandwidth sources.

Despite all this, I'm still very grateful for the VRS services available today. It's far more than any of us could have dared to dream of even 5 years ago. We'll see how it goes over the next couple of years!

 

[navyman]

I totally agree. We should not be stuck with one mode, however, it's been years since anyone invented a videophone, who hasn't already had one on the market.

For example, the VP–100 is how old? Sorenson's VP–200 isn't a groundbreaking difference, since it hasn't opened up new avenues of communication. It's just the same think with a bueaty upgrade.

D–Link's i2eye hasn't really gone anywhere either. The DVC–1000 was revolutionary for it's time, and and VRS providers continue to destribute it.

Amen, amen. Even VRS providers have admitted in their FCC filings that SIP is the way of the future, but no one appears interested in spending money they won't get back to make it a reality with the exception of SnapVRS. I even wonder to myself why SnapVRS wants to pursue a technology that would seem to put them at a fiscal disadvantage from a business case point. My guess is that they must feel that the OJO is going to prove to be, as the software industry likes to term blockbusting software, a "killer application." Since videophones for personal telecom use by hearing people have not taken off by any measure, there's no market incentive for videophone manufacturers to go beyond the standard offerings today. That's why the OJO, at least on paper, seems to be such a promising breakthrough, and perfect for solving a lot of the issues plaguing VRS today.

The DVC–1100 a gave us wireless (though no VRS provider destributes it), and the DVC–2000 removed the need for a TV (though no VRS provider destributes it, and only Hamilton VRS allows for VCOoIP), but D–Link never realeased a compact "DVC–2100". Now that would be a great product: a WiFi videophone you can carry with you. If we had such a thing, VRS users could use it anywhere with WiFi.

That sure would be cool! I had no idea that Hamilton VRS does VCO over IP! Can you provide more details on that? Does that require the Dlink 2000?

If intergrated with PCMA, people could use EV–DO providers (Sprint & Verizon) for video cell phones! Unfortunately, no such technology exists, and it doesn't look anything like that is on the horizon.

With Sprint and Verizon rolling out EV-DO Rev. A (which supports significantly higher upload speeds), it might be possible to use a webcam on a wirelessly connected laptop.

The Motorola OJO didn't seem to bring a lot to the market, although I can't say much, since I've never used one.

I'm not in a position to say much either about the OJO, but the specs and stated capabilities, if they work as advertised, would be impressive. If the OJO works as promised, I hope that it will cause many deaf consumers to switch to the OJO and therefore compel other VRS providers to come up with more competitive technologies.

I've never used an ISDN videophone either, although I can't say they've presented anything groundbreaking either.

There are 3 of us at our Navy installation that use the Polycom ISDN QBRI system, and I can tell you that it is sorely lacking in quality and features compared to a VP-100, for example.

Of course, I'd want all current videophone features integrated into new videophone technology.

Too bad the VRS customer population isn't large enough to incentivize providers/manufacturers on its own. Maybe we need to get everyone to write to the FCC and ask them to change the rules about not reimbursing vendors for attempting to introduce newer videophone techologies. It's fun to dream for the moment though.

 

[Taric25]

VP with VCO

That sure would be cool! I had no idea that Hamilton VRS does VCO over IP! Can you provide more details on that? Does that require the Dlink 2000?

You just make sure audio privacy is off and dial the IP hamiltonvrs.tv or call.hipvrs.com and ask the VI for VCO with your videophone. If you have a i2eye or VP–100 with a phone that can be used with a land line connected to the back RJ–45 (telephone) jack, such as a cordless phone, then you can use that to speak and use your residual hearing. (Some later models of the VP–100 no longer support this feature. I have never tested this with a VP–200.) To avoid echo, you can completly lower your TV's volume or press "MUTE" on your TV remote control. If you don't have a phone connected to your videophone, then you can use the built in microphone. (I have never tested VCO with the VP–200, but I have tested VP–to–VP audio with mixed results.) If you'd like more information, feel free to call me on my videophone.

IP: taric25.bounceme.net

It's too bad that the FCC does not allow reimbursement of R&D costs for newer technologies.

Too bad the VRS customer population isn't large enough to incentivize providers/manufacturers on its own. Maybe we need to get everyone to write to the FCC and ask them to change the rules about not reimbursing vendors for attempting to introduce newer videophone techologies.

The FCC denied HOVRS's reimbursement request but recognized the "catch 22" in which they put VRS companies. Now, the FCC asks VRS companies to request money before R&D.