Purple upset FCC says 'NO' - Page 3

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 02:18 PM

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.

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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

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/r...ent=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:

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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.

right VERY EXPENSIVE and ABUSIVE

if fcc permit soresnon is damn ready to roll out

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

right VERY EXPENSIVE and ABUSIVE

if fcc permit soresnon is damn ready to roll out

I agree with you lmao.

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

Correct me if I am wrong.

you wrong

hint here think node as vp

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

you wrong

hint here think node as vp

what are you trying to say? Enlighten me up!!!

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DefMATRIXense

what are you trying to say? Enlighten me up!!!

replace outside node with a vp what u see there? host is middle node

RedWolf · 10-28-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

replace outside node with a vp what u see there? host is middle node

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.

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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.

beautiful explain!
Purple kelby is hiding this FACT each vrs user has own vrs terp

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

replace outside node with a vp what u see there? host is middle node

Three VP devices connected each other or I'm dumbass. I gotta check the node things and how it works.

DefMATRIXense · 10-28-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

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.

Oh!! I thought I am crazy lol

dkf747 · 10-28-2009, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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.
.

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.

dkf747 · 10-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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

Thanks! I will look tonight.

dkf747 · 10-28-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedWolf

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?

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?

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkf747

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?

right misguided redwolf is fear about shut down will not happen
didnt fcc and state shut down tradition relay service? nope

pandaatv36 · 10-28-2009, 07:31 PM

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

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandaatv36

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.

call it luxury service

Cousin Vinny · 10-28-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwerty123

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

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.

qwerty123 · 10-28-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

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.

you say same on kelby's blog

Chevy57 · 11-01-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafaussie

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

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.

qwerty123 · 11-01-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevy57

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.

surprise me told you before

deafaussie you got proof

deafaussie · 11-01-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevy57

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.

Then why cant we have THAT FEATURE in VP200 allowing us, consumers to use it. It doesn't make sense to me.

Chevy57 · 11-01-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafaussie

Then why cant we have THAT FEATURE in VP200 allowing us, consumers to use it. It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree you. If all deaf, then VRS provider can provide its own multi-video conference program for its deaf/hoh to use that and no need to use VRS? FCC said no.

Mr. Averythest · 11-01-2009, 10:43 PM

I skipped all the E-VRS experts and am going to say this:

Directly from the Vlog purple rolled out about their disappointment - they lost a customer here.

They're morons for trying to pull that stunt and even worse so vlogging about it.

souggy · 11-01-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

I skipped all the E-VRS experts and am going to say this:

Directly from the Vlog purple rolled out about their disappointment - they lost a customer here.

They're morons for trying to pull that stunt and even worse so vlogging about it.

Is there even a major VRS company you're a fan of?

Mr. Averythest · 11-01-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Is there even a major VRS company you're a fan of?

I was a fan of Purple.
Matter of fact - their service was the only one I used.

Now they're peddling more $$ from the FCC, it's BS.

I'm very annoyed about it, truly.

I'll have to do some more research on all the vrs companies and I guess pick the lesser evil.
ffs.

pandaatv36 · 11-02-2009, 10:49 AM

Chevy57....

I believe that sorenson doesn't bill FCC on that deaf multi-call... cuz there is no ex-parte from sorenson to support purple peition. So enuff said. If they have the feature to do the multi-call... that's from the vrs company's expense.

from my understanding, we all deaf ues the videophones to call point to point, all VRS are losing money that way not only one.

souggy · 11-02-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

I was a fan of Purple.
Matter of fact - their service was the only one I used.

Now they're peddling more $$ from the FCC, it's BS.

I'm very annoyed about it, truly.

I'll have to do some more research on all the vrs companies and I guess pick the lesser evil.
ffs.

Let me kn know. :p For now, I am stuck with Viable Visiion. :p

Mr. Averythest · 11-02-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by souggy

Let me kn know. :p For now, I am stuck with Viable Visiion. :p

Hey stutter-er!

I don't know your options about VRS providers up in Canada. They work well?

souggy · 11-02-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by posts from hell

Hey stutter-er!

I don't know your options about VRS providers up in Canada. They work well?

Don't think we have VRS in place. So far it's just point-to-point? I don't think we will have VRS in place until 2011, maybe 2012?

I am only using Viable because I got a Code 12 error with the P3 (when I looked it up, it means I got blocked.) Viable Vision didn't give me a Code 12 error. Plus the DVC1000 is discontinued. :\ So I am looking into a good webcam or see if I can snag a used videophone off of eBay.

10-28-2009, 02:18 PM	#61 (permalink)
DefMATRIXense Am I a legendary Link? Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, Florida & Union City, New Jersey Posts: 1,690	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. __________________

11-01-2009, 10:43 PM	#84 (permalink)
Mr. Averythest apotheosis, paragon of Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,838	I skipped all the E-VRS experts and am going to say this: Directly from the Vlog purple rolled out about their disappointment - they lost a customer here. They're morons for trying to pull that stunt and even worse so vlogging about it. __________________ Bewb patrol here. I'd love to see your bewbs, please send them to me in PM here. Sets of bewbs sent to my pm box: 6 w00t! You guys are awesome! Keep sendin' em in! Itchy groin ASL and Deaf happy hour at Avery Brewery info (January 5th 2010)

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

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

10-28-2009, 07:31 PM	#76 (permalink)
pandaatv36 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8	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

11-02-2009, 10:49 AM	#87 (permalink)
pandaatv36 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8	Chevy57.... I believe that sorenson doesn't bill FCC on that deaf multi-call... cuz there is no ex-parte from sorenson to support purple peition. So enuff said. If they have the feature to do the multi-call... that's from the vrs company's expense. from my understanding, we all deaf ues the videophones to call point to point, all VRS are losing money that way not only one.