Purple upset FCC says 'NO' - Page 2

pandaatv36 · 10-27-2009, 12:46 PM

Purple did not make it CLEAR why FCC have to reimburse them by using multi-party calls without HEARING person involved. Funds under TRS has to be RELAY related calls meaning (hearing to deaf, deaf to hearing). I think the Purple is barking up the wrong tree.

Redwolf... where did the section 255 says that the ADA requires the NECA to remburse *reading* nope... its all about making sure that all equipment are able to communicate with eachother

Multi-party that have all deaf callers, we have done that already... use the conference call through the webcam softwares *scratch head*

Purple... TELL ME why it has to be remburse through TRS while there is NO RELAY calls it doesn't make any sense in your filing at all. I agree what the FCC/CGB says. Hearing caller involved yes... no hearing caller NOPE.

deafaussie · 10-27-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

you dead wrong ask any soresnon installer

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

RedWolf · 10-27-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

you dead wrong ask any soresnon installer

Okay, prove it to me then. Where is the conference call button on VP200?? Last time I checked, there was a new update for VP200 which it is a new video icon can be used for SignMail. But where the conference call? If I don't see it then you still dead wrong.

pandaatv36 · 10-27-2009, 04:19 PM

Deaf Aussie and Red Wolf... I believe Qwerty is stating that Sorenson does have conference calls, but using RELAY. Qwerty didn't say its in VP200. I can be wrong but I know right at this moment that VP200 doesn't have conference capability, maybe in the near future who knows.

So... Red Wolf... I await your response on the Section 255 of Communication Act.

IloveVP · 10-27-2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

you dead wrong ask any soresnon installer

Then tell us the name of program for conference calls.

DefMATRIXense · 10-27-2009, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafaussie

Name one technology or software that supports video conference calls in the following criteria.
Can manage up to 15 people or beyond
Must be H.323 or SIP based telephony
Bandwidth must be limited to around 384Kb

Do you?

Probably not thats why Purple had to file an appeal on this issue.

First of all, you have to be aware that there is a hell of an expensive to use a video conference to video conference and that's why a big companies like a million dollar companies. Now since you asked for it, here it is

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 ****ING 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. Third, Bandwidth must be limited to around 384KB? What kind of weed are you smoking? 384kb cant handle up to 15 people in Video conference in a different states or countries and I think at least 20 mbps download and upload. Might be 5 or 10mbps. Correct me if I am wrong. Fourth and final, There are several video conferencing software and services available such as iVISIT, Breeze and Ilinc.com. They all offer services and higher quality that you will get from an instant messenger program and there is a price that comes with it.

DefMATRIXense · 10-27-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

I haven't tried ooVoo yet, but I did tried Camfrog. Camfrog did charge them premium membership if they wanted to have multiple screen show on screen. But if they are not premium member, then they are stuck with only one screen.

Camfrog is only for webcamming, but what about all VP? Is all VP that does only webcam as well? I don't know how they would make all VP into webcam but I believe VP are separate from webcam. I know people who already have P3 notebook already have webcam, but technology is different in some way. I am surprised in some way because they can work both webcam and all VP to work together.

Now, when it comes to video conferencing, this is going to be interesting scenario between Purple and FCC. All we have to do is wait and see how it ends. If FCC still says no, then we might not going to see video conferencing in any of your MVP after all. This would be pretty bad for all deaf business owners out there in the deaf communities.

I disagreed with this. It's not fair to hearing people because you can see to other deaf person via VIDEO.

zerodog · 10-28-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

First of all, you have to be aware that there is a hell of an expensive to use a video conference to video conference and that's why a big companies like a million dollar companies. Now since you asked for it, here it is

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 ****ING 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. Third, Bandwidth must be limited to around 384KB? What kind of weed are you smoking? 384kb cant handle up to 15 people in Video conference in a different states or countries and I think at least 20 mbps download and upload. Might be 5 or 10mbps. Correct me if I am wrong. Fourth and final, There are several video conferencing software and services available such as iVISIT, Breeze and Ilinc.com. They all offer services and higher quality that you will get from an instant messenger program and there is a price that comes with it.

want to clarify with 'who paid' the MVP product, the money doesn't came from TRS fund to use the device. It Purple who use their money from investor that paid money and providing us to get one in order use their service earn minutes. It simple process, we use the relay because we have free device. Without free device, VRS won't success at first place. As today, it has become better develop while investor spending money on Sorenson project long time while other VRS develop the product.

Sorenson does have Video Conference, I has asked the Sorenson who is trainer. Trainer explain; it just Sorenson purpose but it is interesting.

As DefMATRIXense corrects about it but the fund spending the device, no? want clarify that one.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 05:00 AM

No,you are right. Now it does make sense and why purple is an anal over this issue because investors lent the purple a lot of money and they expected to get money back plus interests or some kind of agreement between the purple and the investors.

diehardbiker · 10-28-2009, 05:19 AM

Hey popcorn guy, one bucket of popcorn and coke please!

dkf747 · 10-28-2009, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

Among other things, Purple asks the Commission to adopt formal rules “that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call,” and to confirm the lawfulness of certain outreach and marketing practices." Now, what this mean is Purple is petitioning to clarify the rules made by FCC which it states, "that confirm that the ADA permits the reimbursement of multi-party VRS calls, regardless of whether a hearing individual is on the call," This was under the law under section 225 under Communication Acts.

Why do Deaf to Deaf to Deaf, etc... calls need VRS at all, or why do they need reimbursement?

Quote:

Imagine this scenario: If this continues with this new change with the new law in the future made by FCC, we might not have deaf to deaf calls anymore because of the new law which requires hearing to deaf call only (through VRS).

Deaf to Deaf calls do not need VRS! How would these calls be at risk?

**Chevy57** · 10-28-2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf747

Why do Deaf to Deaf to Deaf, etc... calls need VRS at all, or why do they need reimbursement?

Deaf to Deaf calls do not need VRS! How would these calls be at risk?

You want multi-party video conference without VRS. but H.323 multi-party video conference cost is very expensive for business.

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature

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.

This is different than software/hardware based applications that people can use to make video conference calls and see everybody at once. Which approach is convenient? Which approach is expensive and/or impractical? Is it that multi-party conference calling via VRS truly functionally equivalent? I'm not sure at this point.

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

funny no consumer complaint at fcc register on confernce call

Actually, there are two consumer petitions;
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content...tionReview.pdf
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content...rification.pdf

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf747

Give me an example of how the video conferencing feature is used so that it requires reimbursement from FCC. The vlog did not explain that.

Purple listed some examples in their FCC filing (Page 12);
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content...tionReview.pdf
Also in the "Consumer Petition Review" (Pages 8-9)
http://www.purple.us/blog/wp-content...tionReview.pdf

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

The TRS Fund is administered by the National Exchange Carriers Association (“NECA”). In the event the FCC decides not to reconsider the Company’s petition for rulemaking or otherwise decides not to permit reimbursement for multi-party calls that do not include a hearing person, and the Company’s efforts to appeal the Order are unsuccessful, the Company will no longer be reimbursed by NECA for such calls. The Company is in the process of determining what portion of its receipts from NECA are attributable to multi-party calls not involving a hearing person and what impact the FCC’s ruling, if upheld, would have on the financial statements of the Company. The inability to collect reimbursement for such multi-party calls would reduce the Company’s revenue and cash flow and the Company believes it would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and results of operations.

That was quite a find. Never thought to look through 8-K filings.

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 10:22 AM

A small disclaimer; I do not work in the relay industry. I am a VRS consumer, however, and use ZVRS.

While I am not sold in the entirety of Purple's latest filings advocating for multi-party VRS calling, I would suggest that the FCC would benefit greatly by having the issue opened for public comment and discussion.

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

I disagreed with this. It's not fair to hearing people because you can see to other deaf person via VIDEO.

No, I was not talking about hearing people who using conference call. I am talking about deaf owners who talk with other deaf owners in a deaf conference call. If deaf owners talk to other deaf owners, FCC told them must have hearing person in the conference call, then deaf owners would groan about it and felt FCC forced them to look for a hearing person to be in the conference call. No matter how many deaf owners, maybe 3 deaf owners got into a conference call, then FCC would tell them, "No conference call unless a hearing person is in the conference call." Then all 3 deaf owners would be forced to look for another hearing caller to be in the call. Or they would be forced to call them invididually which it mean one deaf owner would have to call one owner then when they are done talking then the owner would have to call another owner then when done, then would have to go call back to the first owner. This is really waste of time and money for the deaf owners to make businesses with other deaf owners which I states in my old post by saying this is pretty bad for deaf owners in the deaf communities.

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevy57

You want multi-party video conference without VRS. but H.323 multi-party video conference cost is very expensive for business.

Yes, it can be very expensive but it really worth their money to have this multi conference cost to them. If business owners have enough money to run their business, I am sure they can afford to pay for it with their own pocket money.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

No, I was not talking about hearing people who using conference call. I am talking about deaf owners who talk with other deaf owners in a deaf conference call. If deaf owners talk to other deaf owners, FCC told them must have hearing person in the conference call, then deaf owners would groan about it and felt FCC forced them to look for a hearing person to be in the conference call. No matter how many deaf owners, maybe 3 deaf owners got into a conference call, then FCC would tell them, "No conference call unless a hearing person is in the conference call." Then all 3 deaf owners would be forced to look for another hearing caller to be in the call. Or they would be forced to call them invididually which it mean one deaf owner would have to call one owner then when they are done talking then the owner would have to call another owner then when done, then would have to go call back to the first owner. This is really waste of time and money for the deaf owners to make businesses with other deaf owners which I states in my old post by saying this is pretty bad for deaf owners in the deaf communities.

Thats what I answered your question. Deaf owners should have to pay thier own pockets if they want deaf to deaf confence. It's not fair to hearing people to pay. That's why FCC decided against it.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

Yes, it can be very expensive but it really worth their money to have this multi conference cost to them. If business owners have enough money to run their business, I am sure they can afford to pay for it with their own pocket money.

If not, don't get a video conference at all period.

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandaatv36

Deaf Aussie and Red Wolf... I believe Qwerty is stating that Sorenson does have conference calls, but using RELAY. Qwerty didn't say its in VP200. I can be wrong but I know right at this moment that VP200 doesn't have conference capability, maybe in the near future who knows.

So... Red Wolf... I await your response on the Section 255 of Communication Act.

pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. 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?

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. 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?

This communication Act that has do with deaf people who can't HEAR anything. Video conference is a different because deaf people who can SEE anything which is not applied Communication Act.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

pandaatv36,
With this section 255 of Communication Acts it states, "a comprehensive law overhauling regulation of the telecommunications industry, recognizes the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities. This is required to the extent access is "readily achievable," meaning easily accomplishable, without much difficulty or expense." This mean they ensure that this is accessible with people with disabilities. If the product are "readily achievable", then it would be available to all people who has disabilities. This act covers anything from pagers, fax, telephones, or computer with modems. Manufacturers must make their products accessible to people with disabilities.

I think Purple already complied with this Communication Act, which it was made in 1996, to ensure the equipments are accessible to people with disabilities, but I don't see why FCC are requiring this kind of law to Purple which I don't understand. This is why Purple is asking for clarification with FCC, to see clearly to see what the law interpret and means to them.

dfk747, it can be risky if the law changed in the future. You will never know if it could happen to anyone. Lawmakers can change laws anytime they feel the time is right for them. I know it is the voters who would want to change the law, but lawmakers would change the law anytime they feel like it. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and it happen to affect to everyone no matter what. 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?

No, they wouldn't because taxpayers pay to help people with disabilities. You can see the paycheck, phone bill, or other bill that shows relay service fund and that people have to pay like 3 or 7 cents per month.

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

This communication Act that has do with deaf people who can't HEAR anything. Video conference is a different because deaf people who can SEE anything which is not applied Communication Act.

Exactly, but FCC are following the old written law which they were not caught up with the new technology today. If you can read his older blog, read this:

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » FCC Black Hole of Rules

It can apply to anyone, whether it is telephone companies, cable companies, fax companies, etc, this would impact all deaf communities. FCC have old rules and they have not updated their rules on so many issues. FCC is having a hard time to catch up with new growing technologies of today such as saving the environments, new energy-saving devices, new mobile product such as mobile routers, MVP and many other new technologies. But FCC still stuck with the old rules that haven't evolved with the new technologies of today. Communication Acts were written in 1996 which it is pretty old but maybe they need to update their rules?

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

No, they wouldn't because taxpayers pay to help people with disabilities. You can see the paycheck, phone bill, or other bill that shows relay service fund and that people have to pay like 3 or 7 cents per month.

I have read and understand you that but what if they cut off the relay service fund? Then there wouldn't be relay service at all, right?

Here another vlog made by Kelby, I think it would make me very concern. If I was in Kelby's shoes, I would be concerned and protecting deaf people's rights....FCC need to be educated about the VRS. View this video below...

http://www.purple.us/blog/2009/09/pe...clarification/

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

I have read and understand you that but what if they cut off the relay service fund? Then there wouldn't be relay service at all, right?

I hate to say but yes as long as there is no any fund left.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

I have read and understand you that but what if they cut off the relay service fund? Then there wouldn't be relay service at all, right?

Here another vlog made by Kelby, I think it would make me very concern. If I was in Kelby's shoes, I would be concerned and protecting deaf people's rights....FCC need to be educated about the VRS. View this video below...

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » Petition for Rules Clarification

No this is not what Kelby talking about vrs. He was talking about video conference deaf to deaf. It has nothing do with vrs.

Edit: wrong video lol he is asking for rules clarification. Dumb me!! Lol

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

Exactly, but FCC are following the old written law which they were not caught up with the new technology today. If you can read his older blog, read this:

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » FCC Black Hole of Rules

It can apply to anyone, whether it is telephone companies, cable companies, fax companies, etc, this would impact all deaf communities. FCC have old rules and they have not updated their rules on so many issues. FCC is having a hard time to catch up with new growing technologies of today such as saving the environments, new energy-saving devices, new mobile product such as mobile routers, MVP and many other new technologies. But FCC still stuck with the old rules that haven't evolved with the new technologies of today. Communication Acts were written in 1996 which it is pretty old but maybe they need to update their rules?

I agree with you but purple is fighting FCC over video conference deaf to deaf not deaf to hearing. Have u notice why sorenson and other didn't say or support purple because they are against it and not necessary waste money. Wise choice!!!

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

No this is not what Kelby talking about vrs. He was talking about video conference deaf to deaf. It has nothing do with vrs.

I know that, but this is about FCC vs. all VRS. This is about how FCC works with all VRS, telephone companies, cable companies and many other companies. This is recent article, check this out and see what FCC been doing lately:

Comcast: FCC Action Unlawful, Should Be Reversed - Reviews by PC Magazine

It already happened to Comcast! This could happen to Roadrunner, Brighthouse, Timer Warner Cable, and many more others which affect them huge.

Since FCC already got their new boss, Julius Genachowski, everything gotten changed and now they are very strict to the law and currently enforcing every law. Even old law that were written in 1932. Is Julius got educated about what is VRS means to him/her? Maybe Julius don't know what is VRS meant? FCC had gotten really strict lately.

10-28-2009, 05:00 AM	#39 (permalink)
DefMATRIXense Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, Florida & Union City, New Jersey Posts: 1,719	No,you are right. Now it does make sense and why purple is an anal over this issue because investors lent the purple a lot of money and they expected to get money back plus interests or some kind of agreement between the purple and the investors. __________________

10-28-2009, 05:19 AM	#40 (permalink)
diehardbiker Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: In back of Superduty Posts: 11,281	Hey popcorn guy, one bucket of popcorn and coke please! __________________ J-MAC's quote: "People who try and fail are more superior than people who don't try at all" "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson (1778) Avatar picture is Cape Hatteras light house in OBX.

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

10-27-2009, 12:46 PM	#31 (permalink)
pandaatv36 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 35	Purple did not make it CLEAR why FCC have to reimburse them by using multi-party calls without HEARING person involved. Funds under TRS has to be RELAY related calls meaning (hearing to deaf, deaf to hearing). I think the Purple is barking up the wrong tree. Redwolf... where did the section 255 says that the ADA requires the NECA to remburse reading nope... its all about making sure that all equipment are able to communicate with eachother Multi-party that have all deaf callers, we have done that already... use the conference call through the webcam softwares scratch head Purple... TELL ME why it has to be remburse through TRS while there is NO RELAY calls it doesn't make any sense in your filing at all. I agree what the FCC/CGB says. Hearing caller involved yes... no hearing caller NOPE.

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

10-27-2009, 04:19 PM	#34 (permalink)
pandaatv36 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 35	Deaf Aussie and Red Wolf... I believe Qwerty is stating that Sorenson does have conference calls, but using RELAY. Qwerty didn't say its in VP200. I can be wrong but I know right at this moment that VP200 doesn't have conference capability, maybe in the near future who knows. So... Red Wolf... I await your response on the Section 255 of Communication Act.

10-28-2009, 10:22 AM	#47 (permalink)
Cousin Vinny Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 726	A small disclaimer; I do not work in the relay industry. I am a VRS consumer, however, and use ZVRS. While I am not sold in the entirety of Purple's latest filings advocating for multi-party VRS calling, I would suggest that the FCC would benefit greatly by having the issue opened for public comment and discussion.