One phone number each IP address

qwerty123 · 08-05-2009, 04:10 PM

shame to Purple for many screw up vp200 when MVP release

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=7019934489

IloveVP · 08-05-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

shame to Purple for many screw up vp200 when MVP release

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=7019934489

Why did you just name this specific VRS that voliates? I do not see that name anywhere in this link...

JClarke · 08-05-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveVP

Why did you just name this specific VRS that voliates? I do not see that name anywhere in this link...

I checked and there wasn't so.

Qwerty123 - You sir, what's your point?

qwerty123 · 08-06-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JClarke

I checked and there wasn't so.

Qwerty123 - You sir, what's your point?

do you check careffully? take English class

purple broke rule with mvp redirect 200vp calls
use ip address in purple number to get 200vp calls

zvrs use program get call on 200vp

Nonetheless, some providers - and some users - have taken the view that the rules permit multiple providers to assign different telephone numbers to a single videophone.

The Commission Should Clarify that Only One VRS Provider Is Permitted to Assign Telephone Numbers to Devices Using the Same Protocol and the Same IP Address

Some providers have acted in the apparent belief that users may register with multiple default VRS providers, each of which assigns numbers associated with a single IP address. I I These arrangements create several problems. As an initial matter, arrangements in which multiple providers assign numbers to a single URI violate the Commission's Orders.

For example, when two or more VRS providers assign numbers to multiple devices with the same URI (i.e., at the same IP address), only one device will "ring."

The Commission Should Prohibit Multiple VRS Providers from Assigning Telephone Numbers to a Single IP Address, Regardless of the Protocol Used

JClarke · 08-06-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

do you check careffully? take English class

purple broke rule with mvp redirect 200vp calls
use ip address in purple number to get 200vp calls

zvrs use program get call on 200vp

Nonetheless, some providers - and some users - have taken the view that the rules permit multiple providers to assign different telephone numbers to a single videophone.

The Commission Should Clarify that Only One VRS Provider Is Permitted to Assign Telephone Numbers to Devices Using the Same Protocol and the Same IP Address

Some providers have acted in the apparent belief that users may register with multiple default VRS providers, each of which assigns numbers associated with a single IP address. I I These arrangements create several problems. As an initial matter, arrangements in which multiple providers assign numbers to a single URI violate the Commission's Orders.

For example, when two or more VRS providers assign numbers to multiple devices with the same URI (i.e., at the same IP address), only one device will "ring."

The Commission Should Prohibit Multiple VRS Providers from Assigning Telephone Numbers to a Single IP Address, Regardless of the Protocol Used

Excuse me, sir? Taking english class is offensive to me..I was graduated with high results in english, so shut your mouth.

from the IT side, there is always alternative ways in this, like any other, I mentioned in the other thread, I know this works, and mind you, I am a software engineer -- at university, so next time, watch your words, mister.

qwerty123 · 08-06-2009, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JClarke

Excuse me, sir? Taking english class is offensive to me..I was graduated with high results in english, so shut your mouth.

from the IT side, there is always alternative ways in this, like any other, I mentioned in the other thread, I know this works, and mind you, I am a software engineer -- at university, so next time, watch your words, mister.

relax aussie guy crikey you got axe to grind?
stay on topic!

JClarke · 08-06-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

relax aussie guy crikey you got axe to grind?
stay on topic!

no sir, I don't have an blunt axe to grind today. Be careful, you see...

Jiro · 08-06-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

do you check careffully? take English class

I guess you failed the spelling part, eh? better re-take English class, si.

qwerty123 · 08-06-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I guess you failed the spelling part, eh?

yeah me fail

stay on topic on the complaint, eh?

Jiro · 08-06-2009, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

yeah me fail

stay on topic on the complaint, eh?

should have done that in the first place without resorting to petty insults.

JClarke · 08-06-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I guess you failed the spelling part, eh? better re-take English class, si.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

should have done that in the first place without resorting to petty insults.

Epic win for the both of us, si?

RedWolf · 08-06-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

shame to Purple for many screw up vp200 when MVP release

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=7019934489

There is no mention in the petition that named Purple Communication at all. You need to stop putting the blame on Purple Communication, they didn't do anything wrong at all.

So, what's your point?

Chevy57 · 08-06-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

should have done that in the first place without resorting to petty insults.

LOL Jclarke and Jiro always favor word of "Fail"

Nathan · 08-06-2009, 09:03 PM

This thread........EPIC FAIL

dkf747 · 08-06-2009, 09:48 PM

Well, I'm pretty good with English and I'm not understanding tis petition. Are they saying that I must choose between my VP-200 or my new Purple netbook? Are they saying that we can't have both?

IloveVP · 08-06-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

do you check careffully? take English class

purple broke rule with mvp redirect 200vp calls
use ip address in purple number to get 200vp calls

zvrs use program get call on 200vp

Nonetheless, some providers - and some users - have taken the view that the rules permit multiple providers to assign different telephone numbers to a single videophone.

The Commission Should Clarify that Only One VRS Provider Is Permitted to Assign Telephone Numbers to Devices Using the Same Protocol and the Same IP Address

Some providers have acted in the apparent belief that users may register with multiple default VRS providers, each of which assigns numbers associated with a single IP address. I I These arrangements create several problems. As an initial matter, arrangements in which multiple providers assign numbers to a single URI violate the Commission's Orders.

For example, when two or more VRS providers assign numbers to multiple devices with the same URI (i.e., at the same IP address), only one device will "ring."

The Commission Should Prohibit Multiple VRS Providers from Assigning Telephone Numbers to a Single IP Address, Regardless of the Protocol Used

You still can not find where the word, "Purple" is?

Hmm... You should take a reading lesson.

JClarke · 08-06-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf747

Well, I'm pretty good with English and I'm not understanding tis petition. Are they saying that I must choose between my VP-200 or my new Purple netbook? Are they saying that we can't have both?

Netbook doesn't need any port forwarding and it is just a laptop - behaves like a laptop.

RedWolf · 08-06-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IloveVP

You still can not find where the word, "Purple" is?

Hmm... You should take a reading lesson.

That is exactly what I told qwerty in the other thread couple of months ago. I told him to re-read and read it again before putting the blame on Purple. Read it again, qwerty

Well, I guess he didn't take my advice.

Maybe you are right, maybe he need a reading lesson.

raucht · 08-07-2009, 04:11 AM

I love MVP and Purple 3

zerodog · 08-07-2009, 07:37 AM

Yes... it true about 'shame to Purple'

The reason he say that because on Purple website that mention 'use Sorenson VP even those number still work with Sorenson.' proof; http://www.purple.us/localnumber/10-...mber-Vlog2.swf

Same with CSDVRS mention about like what Purple say that... now they update their website and then correct to become ZVRS. No longer input that information and its look better.

So that why qwerty123 view post and say 'shame to purple'.

zerodog · 08-07-2009, 07:51 AM

add note;

It didn't not say about Purple, but it similar the link as proof that Purple did say about more than one number provider.

dkf747 · 08-08-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JClarke

Netbook doesn't need any port forwarding and it is just a laptop - behaves like a laptop.

That was not what I asked, or meant. I have Sorenson as default with one ten digit number, and a separate Purple 10 dihgit number that I use with P3 software. Often used on the same network (home), or same IP address. Is Sorenson saying that I can't do that?

zerodog · 08-08-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf747

That was not what I asked, or meant. I have Sorenson as default with one ten digit number, and a separate Purple 10 dihgit number that I use with P3 software. Often used on the same network (home), or same IP address. Is Sorenson saying that I can't do that?

It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting

dkf747 · 08-08-2009, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerodog

It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting

I re-read the petition. It asks for two things:

1. One 10 digit number per device

2. One 10 digit number (and one provider) per IP address.

The first makes sense, That's the same as cell phone. The second, however, has me concerned for how a wireless VP can work since it could be used on various IP addresses. Your post mentions the MAC Address. That's the first time that I have heard that it uses the MAC address to identify the correct videophone. If that is true then why does Sorenson need to petition for either of the two issues above?

It seems that this petiton is more about stopping installers from messing up other company's VP than about the above two issues. In other words, shame to other provider's installers for doing that. Which providers, other than Sorenson and Purple, are sending out installers?

diehardbiker · 08-08-2009, 09:00 PM

Better check on OSI layer, see what happens to MAC ID when packets traveling though the Internet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerodog

It is fine that you can use P3 on laptop because it different MAC ID while Neustar can detect the different on each machine.

My understand that Sorenson may ask the concerned and clarify from FCC because we have telephone digital by broadband that conflict with IP Address with VRS system by Neustar. It would be interesting

radioman · 08-10-2009, 09:28 AM

look- as for having only one vp number per device- I kinda understand that. But being in the deaf world, we are on the frontier breaking rules that the hearing has created and exploring the possibilities for the future. Who knows? some day the hearing would adopt OUR standards. As for the other rule for one device per IP address, IT DOES NOT SIMPLIFY THINGS! It seems to be a infringement of our personal rights of freedom. For example, Currently there is NO WAY to be able to have more then one videophone in different rooms and be able to call and answer from any videophone. The deaf does not have the freedom to have a "phone in every room" like hearing can. That is what is so cool about purple. I can have vp200 in living room and then have MVP in kitchen. I can't hear the ring in kitchen for vp200, and due to way house is constructed, can't see flasher either. Or if i need to go to garage and work there I can bring MVP with me to make sure I don't miss out on a important call or call out on help for repairs etc etc etc. I consider the vp200 as a land line phone and MVP a phone i can use anywhere in house. pardon my language ladies and gents- screw Sorenson petition. it hinders more then it helps.

Chevy57 · 08-10-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radioman

look- as for having only one vp number per device- I kinda understand that. But being in the deaf world, we are on the frontier breaking rules that the hearing has created and exploring the possibilities for the future. Who knows? some day the hearing would adopt OUR standards. As for the other rule for one device per IP address, IT DOES NOT SIMPLIFY THINGS! It seems to be a infringement of our personal rights of freedom. For example, Currently there is NO WAY to be able to have more then one videophone in different rooms and be able to call and answer from any videophone. The deaf does not have the freedom to have a "phone in every room" like hearing can. That is what is so cool about purple. I can have vp200 in living room and then have MVP in kitchen. I can't hear the ring in kitchen for vp200, and due to way house is constructed, can't see flasher either. Or if i need to go to garage and work there I can bring MVP with me to make sure I don't miss out on a important call or call out on help for repairs etc etc etc. I consider the vp200 as a land line phone and MVP a phone i can use anywhere in house. pardon my language ladies and gents- screw Sorenson petition. it hinders more then it helps.

I agree. Should be one phone number for any brand name of videophone in every room like hearing s phone sets. I dislike too many different 10-digital numbers for different VPs and webcam.

NightwarriorJin · 08-10-2009, 10:46 PM

personally, i wish they reword it to "one device per port" instead of "IP Address". that way they can specfic the port for each phone number, and each device will ring whatever is being dialed. that would make sense, as if you call 911 on that device, its expected you will get 911 on that device.

and to be honest, i am a bit annoyed that we havent reached to the solution where one phone number will ring all the device or something like that. what happened to that?

TechBill · 08-11-2009, 01:03 PM

I read the petition

IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it.

Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because there are many deaf whom are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still.

So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."

IloveVP · 08-11-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechBill

I read the petition

IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it.

Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because millions of deaf are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still.

So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us."

Millions of deaf ?

08-05-2009, 04:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
qwerty123 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 977	One phone number each IP address shame to Purple for many screw up vp200 when MVP release http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=7019934489

08-06-2009, 09:03 PM	#14 (permalink)
Nathan Perfect Prosecutor Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Lost in Paradise Posts: 2,833 Blog Entries: 6	This thread........EPIC FAIL __________________ Nathan's Blog "Good things come to those who wait"

08-07-2009, 07:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
zerodog My nose is light! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oh Thanks Heaven! Posts: 507	Yes... it true about 'shame to Purple' The reason he say that because on Purple website that mention 'use Sorenson VP even those number still work with Sorenson.' proof; http://www.purple.us/localnumber/10-...mber-Vlog2.swf Same with CSDVRS mention about like what Purple say that... now they update their website and then correct to become ZVRS. No longer input that information and its look better. So that why qwerty123 view post and say 'shame to purple'. __________________ Life is giving to us, we earn it by giving it. Let the dead have the immortality of fame, but the living the immortality of love - mean next child earn the life from me, because I love my child that mean lot to me will give to next little person earn the immortality of love from families.

08-07-2009, 07:51 AM	#21 (permalink)
zerodog My nose is light! Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oh Thanks Heaven! Posts: 507	add note; It didn't not say about Purple, but it similar the link as proof that Purple did say about more than one number provider. __________________ Life is giving to us, we earn it by giving it. Let the dead have the immortality of fame, but the living the immortality of love - mean next child earn the life from me, because I love my child that mean lot to me will give to next little person earn the immortality of love from families.

08-11-2009, 01:03 PM	#29 (permalink)
TechBill Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 838	I read the petition IMO ... It's Sorenson's way of saying they own the H323 protocol and it shouldn't belong to any other provider but in a blurry way of saying it. Pretty much most VRS provider are going with SIP and some still want to hold on to the H323 because there are many deaf whom are still using the older devices which does not support SIP and they want control of it still. So this petition is probably of Sorenson way of saying "We were here first so H323 protocol belong to us." Last edited by TechBill; 08-11-2009 at 04:01 PM.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

08-06-2009, 09:48 PM	#15 (permalink)
dkf747 Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: DC Area Posts: 752	Well, I'm pretty good with English and I'm not understanding tis petition. Are they saying that I must choose between my VP-200 or my new Purple netbook? Are they saying that we can't have both?

08-07-2009, 04:11 AM	#19 (permalink)
raucht Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 47	I love MVP and Purple 3

08-10-2009, 09:28 AM	#26 (permalink)
radioman Registered User Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 793	look- as for having only one vp number per device- I kinda understand that. But being in the deaf world, we are on the frontier breaking rules that the hearing has created and exploring the possibilities for the future. Who knows? some day the hearing would adopt OUR standards. As for the other rule for one device per IP address, IT DOES NOT SIMPLIFY THINGS! It seems to be a infringement of our personal rights of freedom. For example, Currently there is NO WAY to be able to have more then one videophone in different rooms and be able to call and answer from any videophone. The deaf does not have the freedom to have a "phone in every room" like hearing can. That is what is so cool about purple. I can have vp200 in living room and then have MVP in kitchen. I can't hear the ring in kitchen for vp200, and due to way house is constructed, can't see flasher either. Or if i need to go to garage and work there I can bring MVP with me to make sure I don't miss out on a important call or call out on help for repairs etc etc etc. I consider the vp200 as a land line phone and MVP a phone i can use anywhere in house. pardon my language ladies and gents- screw Sorenson petition. it hinders more then it helps.

08-10-2009, 10:46 PM	#28 (permalink)
NightwarriorJin Darkstalker Guy Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In middle of nowhere Posts: 221	personally, i wish they reword it to "one device per port" instead of "IP Address". that way they can specfic the port for each phone number, and each device will ring whatever is being dialed. that would make sense, as if you call 911 on that device, its expected you will get 911 on that device. and to be honest, i am a bit annoyed that we havent reached to the solution where one phone number will ring all the device or something like that. what happened to that?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode