zerodog

I happen walk around the blog but somewhat it already close and so I make one for myrself so it can answer or discuss.

Again, I do not care what its 'think' tells me. I look the action and see the whine. I couldn't believe that Kelby whining about No Deaf Conference Calls.

I am glad that FCC says no because if you want one and you gotta to pay for it. If you want to develop one, find a investor and not the FCC.

FCC is base on TRS funds but where says about DEAF Conference calls. I found its lame and embrassing to have someone is whining and disappoint that only way to get is hearing person use Deaf Conference that doesn't sound like a access communicate with FCC's TRS fund for that?

I found shame and silly for Kelby make VLog about it.

here again the link...

Purple Communications Blog » Blog Archive » No Deaf Conference Calls

What more interesting, the Purple say NO NO about toll free numbers as 10 digit numbers. I found that Purple is going whining after Nov 12 because Purple can't get the connection.

__________________
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.

Deafness

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

web730

You (zerodog) and qwerty123 are the only ones that whine all the times about the VRS services and FCC etc all the times in the AD forum.

(shaking head)

__________________

RedWolf

I don't think Kelby was whining at all. I think he was saying that FCC is making unfair decision about allowing deaf people to have conference calls. For example: If deaf business owners want to have a video conference calls, FCC says if you want to have a video conference call, you must have hearing person to be involved in the conference call. If there is no hearing business owner in the conference call, FCC won't pay for it. Now, deaf business owners would have look elsewhere to find a hearing business owner to be placed in the conference call. The deaf business owners only want to have deaf people to discuss about the business, not the hearing people. It would be unfair to those deaf business owners who would have to force.

zerodog, I know you agree with FCC because you were concerned about TRS fund but what about deaf business owners who want to work together, discuss about business future, or discuss about merging with 2 businesses? We all concerned about businesses' future here in America, even small businesses. If there will be a lot of large businesses here in America, what will happen to small businesses? The small businesses might not go to grow because of the consumers kept going to the large businesses. That is why small businesses are important for conference calls to have deaf small business owners to have video conference calls. Maybe that's why you never thought about small business owners who wanted to grow their business to a larger corporations in America. That's what wrong in America when economy went so bad, large or small business starting to close or starting to layoff employees, which the all time numbers of unemployed is high. It will stay high for who know how long this will going to last.

You got to think about deaf business owners first before you can start thinking Purple are actually whining which they are not. Purple just need to communicate FCC and ask for clarification on the rules made by FCC and ask why FCC won't allow deaf callers to make video conference unless only hearing caller is in the video conference call. I don't see Kelby whining at all, he just thought FCC was being unfair and FCC wasn't clear about the rules they made.

Suppose, FCC made a decision that all consumers who owns videophone (any videophone, even MVP) must pay for the call. Now, how would VRS would feel about this and what about the VRS business in the future? If FCC stopped paying TRS fund to all VRS, VRS would be forced to make you pay for the calls yourself which it would be very expensive for everyone. Do you think that is fair for you? I know you would not feel fair at all.

I am going to stop ranting my mind here and let you speak your mind. LOL

__________________

zerodog

I understand what you are saying but the way he talk sound like.. I understand what he is says on VLog.

I don't mind pay the service as to have that feature. So Purple can make some profit to develop instead depend on FCC. FCC is good for interpreter to service.. but for Deaf to Deaf, why can't we just simple pay service? Know what I am saying

__________________
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.

Dismal Shadow

The one and the same.

__________________

deafaussie

In state VR agency, I wont name one. There is one Deaf person who hold his senior managerial position that uses the deaf to deaf conference calls and uses VRS to conduct their business with their Deaf VR counselors.

Now, FCC had made a rule that deaf-deaf conference calls is not allowed and what would VR do with the Deaf person now? Give pink slip and leave VR, demote to a lower position with lower pay? If FCC rule stands and the VR will have to hire a hearing person to do the conference call with Deaf people via VRS.

I believe FCC might have unknowingly broken the ADA law and Purple has filed an appeal to FCC board of directors.

DefMATRIXense

I am confused because all the time I thought VP to VP is free in exchange to keep call VRS. So FCC can pay for interpreters but why FCC should pay deaf to deaf when it's free? Sorenson and purple are same policy? What is deaf conference looking like? I probably think vp and deaf conference are not same feature

__________________

DefMATRIXense

I think FCC did the right thing because they feel when hearing conference to hearing conternce, fcc dont pay it. its same apply to deaf conference to deaf conference. I don't see why purple is anal over this.

__________________

Chevy57

MVP feature includes multi-party video conference calls with up to people at once.

I like multi-party video conference like ooVoo, SigitSpeed, Skype, etc... but should pay monthly service.

IloveVP

I agree with DefMatrixense. We all deaf people can use the deaf conference without any VRS help. So tell us how can we benefit from VRS for the Deaf Conference.

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.

__________________

Dennis

"Deaf to deaf" VP calls for more than 2 people is just NOT technically possible these days. There is no "conference calling" VP feature built in to any of the VPs or webcams used by most deaf people today. So deaf conference calling is like asking people in the 1900's to do telephone conference calling - it probably just didn't exist, and may have been extremely expensive when it did first come out for hearing people. Also, all the equipment isn't standardized - different VPs with different systems and different protocols. Not going to work.

Multi-point VP calls are extremely bandwidth intensive and not all that mature. The telephone system is very mature and stable, so a conference call can be done reliably. Everyone uses a VP interpreter and the telephone system. That's equal to hearing people. Why should deaf people not be equal to hearing people?

TechBill

Actually it possible and there are several vendors out there that offer conference video callings but most sites you had to pay for it.

There is one free site called Tokbox and it support video group conference calls. Website is TokBox - Free Video Chat and Video Messaging Last time I use it it was free but I haven't use it in a whle so I don't know if still free.

Video calling is not that bandwidth intensive as you may think and you could get by with only 512kb per video which is 256kb up and 256kb down on DSL you should be able to recieve and send about 4 videos calls but it is CPU intensive so low end computer may not be able to decompress or decode more than one video at a time so video conference call require a high-end computer because video calls are compressed and uncompressed which require lots of CPU cycles.


.

qwerty123

rly:

funny no consumer complaint at fcc register on confernce call

zerodog

What about pay service per year? Similar as anti-virus pay 50 dollar per year to improve the service. Know what I am saying?

I know it will going to charge us to use Sorenson or the Purple to use extra feature that nothing relate between Deaf and Hearing. More of Deaf and Deaf because of bandwidth on their service or the memories server to handle mulit-call


How much do you think that reasonable to pay? Just out of curious and I am not running any business of those feature

Just curious

__________________
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.

dkf747

I think that's because most don't understand what we're supposed to complain about. Is this a feature that is commonly used?

zerodog

I need to whining about VRS because I need that service.. I can't live without VRS So you should whine too.

__________________
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.

souggy

Even though majority of the deaf population (as in not ASL signers) uses text-relay?

__________________
"It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it." - Richard Freynman

qwerty123

huh? kelby brick vlog explain how to file there

Purple installers like Nathan, Chevy57 cant file there bec conflict interest

qwerty123

dead feature

zerodog

Yea that one wavie too... that it expect.. but it would be nice service like.. text to SVRS because... lot of small town doesn't have TTY and still stuck... so I guess that what Purple is try to do?

__________________
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.

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.

qwerty123

if FCC say OK then Soresnon will became BIG
Soresnon already has confrence program

dkf747

That is not what I meant. I was asking if video conferencing with a VRS interpreter was commonly done? Why should we complain? I have never used, nor seen it used. I can't even imagine why it would be used and why should the FCC pay for it. 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.

qwerty123

from purple web lookie here

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 why Purple is get anal over it, gotta love Purple for public traded company

RedWolf

No, qwerty, it not just dead. The feature cannot go on because FCC said NO unless hearing caller is involved in the conference calls then deaf callers would be forced to find a hearing person to start a conference calls which I find it is absurd and waste of their time to find a hearing caller.

It is not dead yet, but Purple will try to convince them to overturn the decision. By the way, Sorenson do not have conference program for conference calls. If all VP companies already have conference program, FCC will not allow it unless a hearing caller is involved. If you meant Sorenson VRI program that is completely different program than the regular conference calls. This can be found in Sorenson VRI which it is completely different program that interpret between hearing and deaf people in the same location. It states, "Ideal for one-on-one discussions or small group conversations", which it still between deaf and hearing people to use this program. SorensonVRI program is totally different if you meant those program.

What this whole topic is about having deaf to deaf conference calls instead of using hearing to deaf conference call. Having deaf to deaf conference calls is the best idea to use for deaf business owners to have conference calls. If FCC told them NO to conference calls unless there a hearing caller, then it would waste deaf callers' time to find one.

Again, qwerty, the conference call with MVP or P3 is not dead but they will try their best to convince FCC to overturn that decision. Another way of saying, Purple is asking for clarification on why FCC declined to allow Purple to use conference call unless a hearing caller is involved in the conference call.

Now, qwerty, read closely on this petition you provided,
"Exhibit number 99.2- Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Rules filed by Purple Communications, Inc. on August 12, 2009 with the Federal Communications Commission."

Do you know what this mean qwerty? It is a petition asking to clarify rules filed by Purple with FCC. This is why Kelby is working with them about this situation, seeking clarification from FCC. Now when you read down to the bottom of the petition, I will provide you part of the petition which it states, "Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which added section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 1 requires common carriers offering telephone voice transmission services to provide telecommunications relay services (TRS) throughout their service areas. Telecommunications relay services are defined in the Communications Act as “services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual.” and there is another underneath the first petition it says, "On August 12, 2009, Purple Communications, Inc. (Purple) filed a Petition for Rulemaking to Clarify Relay Rules. 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.

I hope you understand the petition, if you don't then read it again, and read it closely, qwerty.

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). What do you think FCC would do? Do you think FCC will stop deaf to deaf calls or deaf to deaf conference calls unless there will be hearing callers in the VP calls? What do you think what this will happen in the future? If it does comes true, then all of the deaf communities would have to make a TTY calls to deaf callers. That means every deaf person would have to bring out the old dinosaur TTY out of the attic or their closets to make a deaf call to a deaf person just because the "law" says they can't make deaf to deaf call on VP, only hearing to deaf call are allowed on all VP only. Imagine this going to happen to you? Do you think you would allow FCC telling you what to do on how you make your calls on VP or TTY? What you will think about this, huh?

__________________

deafaussie

WOW, Qwerty simply refers to the MVP itself. Conference feature inside MVP unit is dead and non-functioning.

qwerty123

you dead wrong ask any soresnon installer

qwerty123

you mean Purple abuse deaf deaf confrence calls for many months, earn millions from FCC then ask FCC to get approval for it, FCC/CGB say no, then ask FCC to reconsider? backward!

page 16-18 filed on 17 aug 2009

it is form of abuse

redwolf, good posting at http://www.purple.us/blog/2009/10/no...ference-calls/ see if Kelby post here in AD
still no public comment in FCC docket 03-123

qwerty123

right for how long? more than 2.5 YEARS!!!