Best way for hearing person to use PC webcam to call deaf/HoH VRS number?

tecgeek · Nov 21, 2010

Hi,

I am new to AllDeaf.com. I am the hearing son of deaf parents. Although my parents are in their mid 80's they and my brother and I (CODA's) are so thankful for the technology advancement that has occurred in recent years to replace their old TTY with a Sorenson Video Phone. Although we wished this technology would have been available at an earlier age in my parents life, never the less it has been such a blessing for them. My parents can see face to face other deaf friends far away across the country, they can use the video relay service to call those without a video phone, etc. They can call my brother and I to our respective cell phones and literally reach us anywhere and we likewise can call them.

Yet as wonderful as this technology is what I am interested in understanding is as of this current date (late Nov 2010) what is the best way for someone that is hearing (not Deaf or Hard of Hearing) can use their PC (Windows or Mac) to call someone that is deaf/HoH who has a video phone number?

The background for this question is that there are many times where the Video Relay Service is perfect for my brother or myself to call our parents. We may be at work, out somewhere away from home, traveling and we and our parents are just a video relay call apart. But there are other situations where my brother or myself are at our respective homes where we have computers and high speed internet service (doesn't almost everyone now) and would rather use our webcam to call our parents, to see their faces and let them see ours; (I live 20 minutes from my parents but my brother is a couple states away).

What is the best way to do this?

A few years ago I saw that Sorenson had some Windows PC software called Envision that I was able to call my folks with my webcam. But they have stopped providing this software. I have seen other new companies come into the Video Relay market and have these companies provide other hardware and even software but on the software side the things I have looked at seem to ask during the sign up process and imply that I need to be deaf/HoH to use their software.

Maybe I am wrong on this but it is as if they are all after getting as many deaf/HoH calls thru their service so they can mark it off as a call made which is reimbursed thru government funding. At least in the case of Sorenson and their Envision software I am wondering if they dont provide that anymore as maybe it reduced the number of video relay calls.

Please do not get me wrong I suspect I do not have all the information and do not want to offend any companys and/or the service they are providing but I am trying to understand how best to use my webcam (when it makes sense) since I know sign language in these situations do not need a video relay operator to sign for me how to make a call and to do so without having to miss represent myself thru some service as deaf/HoH.

BTW, I am fairly tech savvy and even saw a posting that showed I can use NetMeeting to call my parents to their IP address and have done this and works fine but for the sake of any other hearing children, parents, friends, etc. that know sign and want to in certain situations use their webcam make calls I am making this inquiry.

Thanks anyone for any ideas on this!

Regards,
Tom

radioman · Nov 22, 2010

I feel for you. There are no current computer software that is "install freindly" that will work to call via vp numbers.

The only way at this time is to go old school and use a copy of envision sl or netmeeting and call via ip address. Unfornuately not many hearing people are tech savvy like you.

One idea I can come up with is that a company needs to step up to FCC or simalar with agreement to obtain a block of "vp numbers for hearies" and sell it with a monthly fee along with software copycat like purple, snapvrs, etc for hearing people to use.

The idea is to seperate the hearing and deaf vp numbers, but still allow direct calling instead of VRS every single time like you said, call from home directly via vp numbers.

I don't think that it will create any competion with VRS companies when a hearing person calls thier deaf freinds, parants, lovers, etc as the percentage of the hearing knowing sign is very small compared to all the hearies calling the deaf via VRS.

The other idea is go old fashioned and both your folks and you use whats already available via pc/mac. use yahoo, aim, msn, other pc/mac webcams software and call each other via proxy server/software. granted- its not same as calling from pc to videophones numbers, but its the only option right now.

tecgeek · Nov 22, 2010

Thanks Radioman for your reply.

Thinking about it more using NetMeeting or Envision SL with the IP address isn't that bad but as you said it adds another layer of tech savviness. In lieu of a VP based solution for a hearie, I wish there was a tech way to given my parents VP number I could run some PC command to retrieve the IP address that is associated with it from my end?

What I have done in the past is run IP monitoring software from no-ip.com on my parents PC which then maps to a dedicated web address that I can enter instead of the actual IP address since my parents currently have a dynamic IP address assigned from their internet provider. As you said I have a certain level of tech savvy that works fine for me and my question was more aimed to make sure I wasn't missing some other legal hearie way to use a VP based software method and thinking that whether for myself or other hearies that know sign there are many of us in this same situation.

Also the usage model I am looking at is just one way from hearie to the deaf person, ie. when I have my PC webcam access I want to be able to call my folks to see sign and see them but when I am in other situations using their VP relay number if perfect. But I do not really need my parents to be able to call me on my webcam as often the computer is not on, I may not be home, etc. and thus for our situation where they are in their life (age) I would rather them always use the video relay to call my cell phone. When I answer I can make the decision if I am at home if we want to make the call short and then I call them from my webcam or not.

Every situation is different and what works for one may not work for another. Although I mentioned my parents have a PC the reality is at 86 they dont really use their computer thus I prefer a solution that doesn't involve that. Having said that my oldest daughter is a freshman at college away from home and I agree for those situations where both sides are comfortable with a PC/MAC using Skype or something to do a webcam video call is wonderful; just did that with my daughter last night.

Thank goodness for technology! I just wish it could work easier between deaf/HoH and hearies who know sign. There may not be much time in the case of my parents given their age yet I hope that this can be addressed in the future for others since there is no reason to make it difficult for deaf/HoH and their family, friends, etc. who know sign to do so effectively.

VRSEngineer · Nov 23, 2010

videophones for hearies

The FCC has mandated that VRS providers cannot put a hearing phone number in the iTRS database, and that VRS providers cannot use NECA funds to pay for hearing videophone service.

So long as the hearing person _pays_ for a service account on a reoccurring basis with a VRS provider, and pays full price for a videophone device (unsubsidized), and their phone number is NOT put into the iTRS database, it is perfectly acceptable for hearies to place deaf videophone calls using a videophone serviced by a VRS provider.

Check this out:
ZVRS hearing videophone service

This means that your friends/family with Z phones would be able to call you, but since the phone number isn't in iTRS, anyone with a non-Z phone would not.

As for how things work:

P2P calls are H.323 based, thanks mostly to the legacy of IP dialing, and Sorenson's market dominance driving the FCC to adopt a silly phone number to IP lookup thorugh the Neustar iTRS database. Simply put, there is no way for anyone but a VRS provider to be able to find the IP address for any given deaf videophone phone number and any given point in time.

Sure, you can ask someone for their IP. But it's not that easy.

Some phones are configured to H.323 signal directly, usually through specially configured router NAT rules or DMZ segments. For these videophones, you can use something like no-ip or dyndns or something of that sort to keep a DNS record pointed at an IP address so that you can dial it from any H.323 capable videophone.

Some videophones, however, don't H.323 signal through the residential public IP that the videophone sits behind.

Purple, for example, publishes the IP address of thier Purple P3 gateway for all of their P3 softphones. This causes problems with return calls (VP200 call history, for example).

ZVRS, for example, assigns every customer a unique "ZConnect" IP address in their cloud. This works around the VP200 call history return call bug, and ensures that you can reach that phone using any H.323 videophone using an IP dial to their "ZConnect" IP address.

Your next question is about softphones.

Snap's Viable Vision, ZVRS' Z4, and SprintVRS' SV4 all use the Mirial Softphone. It's the version bundled with the Mirial MCS product, but that is really just a server-licensed version of the Mirial Pro client (now the Mirial Softphone HD). The mirial clients are dual-stack SIP and H.323. They SIP register to the Mirial MCS at those VRS providers and all outbound calling goes through using SIP. It is possible to place an h323: call directly from a dual-stack videophone, but you need special NAT precautions on your router and a properly configured public IP in the software to get that to work.

Purple's P3 is a rebranded Vidsoft.de client. It uses proprietary non-standard signalling through the Purple Vidsoft gateway to make and receive calls. There was rumor of them moving to a SIP based client at one point, but that hasn't happened yet.

There are a number of other H.323 capable video clients out there as well, but they also require special NAT precautions on your router to get working properly. A good example would be XMeeting for OS/X, which works fairly well, but is a bit unstable at times.

So long as a H.323 videophone is NAT aware, or is put on a public IP outside of a firewall, and is H.263 capable, it's a good bet you can place calls from it to a deaf videophone.

CharlesT · Nov 9, 2011

This problem comes up all the time. There has been numerous times when it would have been extremely helpful if a CODA friend (or any friend, but most of mine that know ASL happen to be CODAs), an ASL instructor/tutor, or an interpreter could have reached me via VP. I have discussed this at length with many deaf/hoh people and have never met a single one that doesn’t agree that the people being hurt the most (by hearing callers not being able to call our VPs (P2P of course) by 10-digit numbers) are us deaf/hoh VP users!

I know this is an old thread, but a current issue with a friend not being able to use his ntouch mobile app to communicate with an interpreter that I setup with a DVC-1100 (kind of like a wireless VP-100 for hearing people) has brought this issue to the surface once again. I donated the DVC-1100 so we could communicate VP to VP. For her, dialing by IP address is a huge headache, but it was better than nothing. However, now she can’t even communicate with people using a ntouch app (I haven’t looked at it yet, but as was confirmed in a different thread, ntouch mobile isn’t H.263 codec capable and the DVC-1100 is only H.263).

I’m having a hard time understanding why Neustar’s iTRS database isn’t open to anyone who wishes to obtain an IP address, corresponding to a 10-digit number, so a P2P connection can be established. I do understand that part of the reasoning was to stop hearing people from using interpreters and consuming TRS funds, but when does a hearing person, who can use a standard telephone, need an interpreter? I just can’t see this happening, am I missing something?

Come to think of it, I don’t even understand why there was a need for a new ENUM database in the first place! There was/is already a perfectly good e164.arpa database.

I swear I’ve heard the term “functionally equivalent” thrown around a few times, so I’d like to know what is functionally equivalent about hearing people being able to place/receive H.323 P2P voice phone calls by 10-digit numbers to/by anyone they choose, but we can’t place/receive H.323 P2P video phone calls to/by 10-digit number to anyone we choose. It’s essentially the same thing: P2P data from one 10-digit number to another without the need to dial by IP address.

Also, I’m curious if there are any restrictions to a VPs 10-digit number also being placed into the e164.arpa database (in addition to the iTRS database). I don’t think it would cause any problems because hearing VP products can’t access the iTRS database and the deaf/hoh VP products don’t look to arpa for resolution.

Forcing hearing people to buy deaf/hoh VPs at an exorbitant price and charging them a healthy monthly fee isn’t a good solution (and isn’t working well). However, if they were using standard H.323 hardware (or even better, and less expensive, a software client) that obtains NAPTR records via e164.arpa, it would mean that hearing people would instantly be able to dial and connect to our VPs using our 10-digit number.

As for hearing people to be able to receive calls by 10-digit numbers, it only makes sense that one should be able to pay a minimal monthly fee to a provider for “service” that would then allow anyone to resolve their 10-digit number into an IP address (likewise via e164.arpa). Seems to me that if PSTN calls were blocked and only IP calls were allowed, the monthly fee would be very small.

Star1970 · Nov 12, 2011

I think you can use Skype Video because hearing people know sign language and can video to deaf person without call Relay or interpeter. Video Calls - Free Video Calls - Skype. I never try it but interest. I understand you don't feel comfortable with 3 party on Soreson VRS with interpreter.

VRSEngineer · Nov 12, 2011

CharlesT said:
This problem comes up all the time. There has been numerous times when it would have been extremely helpful if a CODA friend (or any friend, but most of mine that know ASL happen to be CODAs), an ASL instructor/tutor, or an interpreter could have reached me via VP. I have discussed this at length with many deaf/hoh people and have never met a single one that doesn’t agree that the people being hurt the most (by hearing callers not being able to call our VPs (P2P of course) by 10-digit numbers) are us deaf/hoh VP users!

Unfortunately, there really isn't a hearing video dialplan. The entire hearing PSTN network is audio based. Sure, there are ENUM lookup zones like enum.arpa, enum.us, enum.at, etc, but the video aspect of that is left up to the actual protocol negotiation at the time of the call (assuming there isn't a PSTN audio-only leg in the middle of that call).

There is also no way to know if an ASL interpreter might be needed.

Today, companies like ZVRS have an integrated dialplan that look to see if the call is to one of their video endpoint phone numbers, or if it is a number in the iTRS database. If it is neither, it is assumed that the call is a PSTN call someone who is hearing.

It is conceivably possible to include other ENUM dialplans to the above, but there would need to be a dialed prefix or some other mechanism to indicate that a point-to-point video calls is being requested to a non-deaf phone number on the PSTN network.

CharlesT said:
I know this is an old thread, but a current issue with a friend not being able to use his ntouch mobile app to communicate with an interpreter that I setup with a DVC-1100 (kind of like a wireless VP-100 for hearing people) has brought this issue to the surface once again. I donated the DVC-1100 so we could communicate VP to VP. For her, dialing by IP address is a huge headache, but it was better than nothing. However, now she can’t even communicate with people using a ntouch app (I haven’t looked at it yet, but as was confirmed in a different thread, ntouch mobile isn’t H.263 codec capable and the DVC-1100 is only H.263).

The solution to your problem is to use another video endpoint that _does_ support H.263, like any of the VRS providers who use the Mirial software endpoints which are capable of doing so (ZVRS, SprintVRS, ATTVRS, Convo, Viable Vision, etc).

That there isn't an enforced FCC requirement to make all videophones interoperable and backward compatible is the real travesty here.

CharlesT said:
I’m having a hard time understanding why Neustar’s iTRS database isn’t open to anyone who wishes to obtain an IP address, corresponding to a 10-digit number, so a P2P connection can be established. I do understand that part of the reasoning was to stop hearing people from using interpreters and consuming TRS funds, but when does a hearing person, who can use a standard telephone, need an interpreter? I just can’t see this happening, am I missing something?

Privacy comes to mind. But more importantly, Neustar makes money based on the database dip volumes to their databases, which is why they also run databases like the NPAC (number portability database) and other databases that are critically important to the NANPA dialplan and the PSTN network as it is today.

IP dialing is the real shame here.

I have an even harder time understanding how Sorenson convinced the FCC that H.323 direct IP dialing was the best way to handle VRS to begin with. But as this was "the way things are done", it has continued along this path.

With IPV4 exhaustion, NATting becomes more and more of a technical barrier to providing VoIP solutions, and finding the source IP address of a caller behind a B2BUA SBC doing media proxy is really impossible.

Seriously. Using IP addresses is the wrong way of going about this problem. Ensuring that origination equipment and call paths are fully authenticated and non-spoofable are the correct solution: make sure that ANI is correct even if caller ID is blocked, as it is used for inter-carrier billing and is impossible to track back or guarantee the identity of if you don't run all of the hops through various carriers that a PSTN call makes.

CharlesT said:
Come to think of it, I don’t even understand why there was a need for a new ENUM database in the first place! There was/is already a perfectly good e164.arpa database.

Neustar's iTRS database just holds E2U+h323 ENUM records. Some providers have errantly used h323 URIs and DNS names when the mandate is to only use IP addresses (which makes no real sense).

Moreover, I have a very difficult time understanding why IP reverse lookups via an XMLRPC API to ensure a VRS caller is in the iTRS database is really the best way of handling identification of deaf customers for dial-around purposes to other VRS providers.

The other problem is that those ENUM databases are primarily used by SIP, not H.323. You will find they are mainly E2U+SIP records. As such, you must interoperate through an interworking framework to translate your H.323 calls to SIP to place calls to those networks. You don't even want to know how few such gateways exist that can actually handle video.

CharlesT said:
I swear I’ve heard the term “functionally equivalent” thrown around a few times, so I’d like to know what is functionally equivalent about hearing people being able to place/receive H.323 P2P voice phone calls by 10-digit numbers to/by anyone they choose, but we can’t place/receive H.323 P2P video phone calls to/by 10-digit number to anyone we choose. It’s essentially the same thing: P2P data from one 10-digit number to another without the need to dial by IP address.

Correct! On the other hand, the hearing world really hasn't sorted this out either. Video is still magic to them. In many ways, the VRS industry has pioneered a 10 digit video dialplan that is unparalleled in the hearing community.

CharlesT said:
Also, I’m curious if there are any restrictions to a VPs 10-digit number also being placed into the e164.arpa database (in addition to the iTRS database). I don’t think it would cause any problems because hearing VP products can’t access the iTRS database and the deaf/hoh VP products don’t look to arpa for resolution.

The real question here is how to ensure that an interpreter is included between to folks who can't communicate each other without one. The trick is somehow indicating that one is needed using a dial prefix, or some protocol enhancement to know that such a thing is requested. There simply is no such standard today.

CharlesT said:
Forcing hearing people to buy deaf/hoh VPs at an exorbitant price and charging them a healthy monthly fee isn’t a good solution (and isn’t working well). However, if they were using standard H.323 hardware (or even better, and less expensive, a software client) that obtains NAPTR records via e164.arpa, it would mean that hearing people would instantly be able to dial and connect to our VPs using our 10-digit number.

How would you go about knowing when they want an interpreter or not?

If you have a workable solution, I'd love to consider it here for ZVRS customers. We are very open to such ideas.

CharlesT said:
As for hearing people to be able to receive calls by 10-digit numbers, it only makes sense that one should be able to pay a minimal monthly fee to a provider for “service” that would then allow anyone to resolve their 10-digit number into an IP address (likewise via e164.arpa). Seems to me that if PSTN calls were blocked and only IP calls were allowed, the monthly fee would be very small.

Again, the IP debacle is a personal irritation I have with how this is done today.

I think you'll find that most of those hearing customers on video phones are behind corporate PBXes or centrex services from a central office or some other audio-only trunking platform that prevents video calls.

I think you'll find the real market here is integrating those enterprise/government customers into a unified 10 digit dialplan that permits videophone calls between them.

This is what the ZVRS Business (BVS) group does today.

The list of customers is quickly growing. Before you know it, you may very well be able to place these calls directly.

But, again, the real trick is knowing when to involve a terp.

CharlesT · Nov 14, 2011

VRSEngineer: I agree with what you wrote (with the exception of iTRS database privacy), but I think my original post was misunderstood because I was quickly typing out thoughts as they were entering my head, lol. I’ll try again, but first let me address a couple of issues.

In regard to the H.263 lack of support in Sorenson’s ntouch mobile app, I agree completely and had already informed my friend that he should install another provider’s app. Either Purple or ZVRS should work well for him, but he insisted that he needed to stay with Sorenson and will resort to texting the interpreter when he contacts her. This is very frustrating because I don’t think he understands how easy it would be to have both apps installed in the phone and use either one at will.

As for the privacy issue, personally, I don’t really think that the iTRS database provides an enormous amount of privacy. Also, I don’t believe public IPs were/are, due to their very nature, intended to be completely private (kind of like an address that’s displayed on a home or business). Sure maybe the name of the person at that address might be private but the address is visible to anyone. In this case, publicly associating a 10-digit phone number (that’s linked to a public address) without a name, social, or other specific identifying information would only help others communicate with us (the main goal in the first place).

This brings me back to my original point… One of my (and other deaf/hoh friends of mine) main complaints is that hearing family, friends, interpreters, professors, etc cannot call our videophones from either a dedicated piece of hardware, or as stated in this thread, a computer with a web cam. What usually ends up happening is that Skype (or similar) is used. This is a headache as I already have a dedicated piece of hardware that acts as my phone and when a call comes in, I need to get to a PC and use a totally different system. In addition, equally frustrating is that Skype isn’t connected to my flasher/shaker to alert me of incoming calls throughout my house.

While we are in complete agreement that H.323 direct dialing was not a smart decision on the part of the FCC (I think some of the folks making these governmental decisions don’t fully understand the technology they are creating rules for/about), we are currently stuck with it and have no other choice but to use (in my case daily) the system as it exists today. Thus, I’m trying to figure out how to work within these current parameters, rules, regulations, and laws.

As mentioned, I see no reason why the iTRS database needed to be created when they could have just picked a particular e164 database/directory and standardized it (if they didn’t want to get away from IP dialing). It would have saved all the extra lookup fees and it would have allowed hearing people access to our video phones! However, again, they didn’t do that so now I’m trying to figure out if we can do something that will make life easier for those hearing individuals who are willing to purchase inexpensive hardware or software to gain the ability to call us via our 10-digit numbers.

Admittedly, I have a limited experience with this, but was involved with setting up an asterisk gateway with H.323 channel drivers. It allowed hearing individuals to place SIP, and after extended, H.323 calls from anyone to anyone via an ENUM lookup and DNS style resolution through e164.arpa (we also used e164.org as it was super easy to register and maintain records). I didn’t know that the iTRS database doesn’t use SIP URIs or H.323 URLs until you mentioned it (same goes for XLM –RPC reverse lookups, more stupidity), but it shouldn’t matter for my question. Basically, I’m wondering if it might make sense to register our 10-digit numbers with an e164 directory and have standardized software (for use with a web cam) that resolved IP addresses through it. As long as everyone was resolving through the same databases/directories, the hearing public could reach those of us who already have dedicated hardware (e.g. VP-200) that is accessible via a public IP address.

If we start with just being able to allow the signing hearing world to access our VPs by using our 10-digit numbers (dialing by IP addresses confuse most individuals) there would be no reason to involve an interpreter. Thus, there wouldn’t be any issues with regards to when to transfer to an interpreter. It’s against the FCC regulations anyway, but also goes against what we are trying to accomplish. I understand this wouldn’t be the top priority of VRS companies as P2P calls don’t them make money, but deaf/hoh being in touch with the signing community (regardless of whether the callers are hearing or deaf/hoh) is important to most of us!

In other words, their softphone would check the e164 directory and if the 10-digit number they were trying to call contained a valid h:323 record the public IP could be resolved and a video setup attempted. If there isn’t an h:323 record, then a call wouldn’t be attempted and an error message returned.

This could even work really nicely with a simple piece of hardware like the DVC-1000 if, instead of using proxy numbers and a private server to obtain an associated IP address, the hardware could resolve through a standard database/directory.

Since we agree that H.323 voice only calls and H.323 video calls only really differ by call setup video negotiation, we can take this one step further. I know many hearing people with IP phones who have a “real” 10-digit phone number. Granted, as you stated, most of these phones are SIP (some support dual stack SIP/H.323), but the point is it’s a “real” phone number and it’s placed in an e.164 database. Thus (as purely and option), if a hearing person chose to pay a small monthly service fee to an IP style phone provider (could even possibly be a VRS provider if they were interested) for “service” (internet routing only, PSTN routing blocked (as can be done with VoIP phones)) they could legally obtain a real (non proxy) 10-digit phone number that would be registered with an e164 service. Then if a VRS company modified their software (or hardware) so that when a call was placed from their videophone it would first attempt to obtain an IP address via the e164 directory (at no charge so I put it first), then if no success an iTRS lookup (and if there still wasn’t success route the call to an interpreter), it would mean that we could directly dial hearing video phones using their 10-digit numbers too.

CharlesT · Nov 18, 2011

Moderator: I'm resubmitting this because I sent it a week ago, and was advised that it needs to be approved before being posted, but nothing ever showed up. Also, how many posts do I need before I can post without needing approvals?

VRSEngineer: I agree with what you wrote (with the exception of iTRS database privacy), but I think my original post was misunderstood because I was quickly typing out thoughts as they were entering my head, lol. I’ll try again, but first let me address a couple of issues.

In regard to the H.263 lack of support in Sorenson’s ntouch mobile app, I agree completely and had already informed my friend that he should install another VRS provider’s app (I know it doesn’t need to be a VRS app, but I think it would be best). Either Purple or ZVRS should work well for him, but he insisted that he needed to stay with Sorenson and will resort to texting the interpreter when he contacts her. This is very frustrating because I don’t think he understands how easy it would be to have both apps installed in the phone and use either one at will.

As for the privacy issue, personally, I don’t really think that the iTRS database provides an enormous amount of privacy. Also, I don’t believe public IPs were/are, due to their very nature, intended to be completely private (kind of like an address that’s displayed on a home or business). Sure maybe the name of the person at that address might be private but the address is visible to anyone. In this case, publicly associating a 10-digit phone number (that’s linked to a public address) without a name, social, or other specific identifying information would only help others communicate with us (the main goal in the first place).

This brings me back to my original point… One of my (and other deaf/hoh friends of mine) main complaints is that hearing family, friends, interpreters, professors, etc cannot call our videophones from either a dedicated piece of hardware, or as stated in this thread, a computer with a web cam. What usually ends up happening is that Skype (or similar) is used. This is a headache as I already have a dedicated piece of hardware that acts as my phone and when a call comes in, I need to get to a PC and use a totally different system. In addition, equally frustrating is that Skype isn’t connected to my flasher/shaker to alert me of incoming calls throughout my house.

While we are in complete agreement that H.323 direct dialing was not a smart decision on the part of the FCC (I think some of the folks making these governmental decisions don’t fully understand the technology they are creating rules for/about), we are currently stuck with it and have no other choice but to use (in my case daily) the system as it exists today. Thus, I’m trying to figure out how to work within these current parameters, rules, regulations, and laws.

As mentioned, I see no reason why the iTRS database needed to be created when they could have just picked a particular e164 database/directory and standardized it (if they didn’t want to get away from IP dialing). It would have saved all the extra lookup fees and it would have allowed hearing people access to our video phones! However, again, they didn’t do that so now I’m trying to figure out if we can do something that will make life easier for those hearing individuals who are willing to purchase inexpensive hardware or software to gain the ability to call us via our 10-digit numbers.

Admittedly, I have a limited experience with this, but was involved with setting up an asterisk gateway with H.323 channel drivers. It allowed hearing individuals to place SIP, and after extended, H.323 calls from anyone to anyone via an ENUM lookup and DNS style resolution through e164.arpa (we also used e164.org as it was super easy to register and maintain records). I didn’t know that the iTRS database doesn’t use SIP URIs or H.323 URLs until you mentioned it (same goes for XLM –RPC reverse lookups, more stupidity), but it shouldn’t matter for my question. Basically, I’m wondering if it might make sense to register our 10-digit numbers with an e164 directory and have standardized software (for use with a web cam) that resolved IP addresses through it. As long as everyone was resolving through the same databases/directories, the hearing public could reach those of us who already have dedicated hardware (e.g. VP-200) that is accessible via a public IP address.

If we start with just being able to allow the signing hearing world to access our VPs by using our 10-digit numbers (dialing by IP addresses confuse most individuals) there would be no reason to involve an interpreter. Thus, there wouldn’t be any issues with regards to when to transfer to an interpreter. It’s against the FCC regulations anyway, but also goes against what we are trying to accomplish. I understand this wouldn’t be the top priority of VRS companies as P2P calls don’t them make money, but deaf/hoh being in touch with the signing community (regardless of whether the callers are hearing or deaf/hoh) is important to most of us!

In other words, their softphone would check the e164 directory and if the 10-digit number they were trying to call contained a valid h:323 record the public IP could be resolved and a video setup attempted. If there isn’t an h:323 record, then a call wouldn’t be attempted and an error message returned.

This could even work really nicely with a simple piece of hardware like the DVC-1000 if, instead of using proxy numbers and a private server to obtain an associated IP address, the hardware could resolve through a standard database/directory.

Since we agree that H.323 voice only calls and H.323 video calls only really differ by call setup video negotiation, we can take this one step further. I know many hearing people with IP phones who have a “real” 10-digit phone number. Granted, as you stated, most of these phones are SIP (some support dual stack SIP/H.323), but the point is it’s a “real” phone number and it’s placed in an e.164 database. Thus (as purely and option), if a hearing person chose to pay a small monthly service fee to an IP style phone provider (could even possibly be a VRS provider if they were interested) for “service” (internet routing only, PSTN routing blocked (as can be done with VoIP phones)) they could legally obtain a real (non proxy) 10-digit phone number that would be registered with an e164 service. Then if a VRS company modified their software (or hardware) so that when a call was placed from their videophone it would first attempt to obtain an IP address via the e164 directory (at no charge so I put it first), then if no success an iTRS lookup (and if there still wasn’t success route the call to an interpreter), it would mean that we could directly dial hearing video phones using their 10-digit numbers too.

VRSEngineer · Nov 19, 2011

CharlesT said:
In regard to the H.263 lack of support in Sorenson’s ntouch mobile app, I agree completely and had already informed my friend that he should install another VRS provider’s app (I know it doesn’t need to be a VRS app, but I think it would be best). Either Purple or ZVRS should work well for him, but he insisted that he needed to stay with Sorenson and will resort to texting the interpreter when he contacts her. This is very frustrating because I don’t think he understands how easy it would be to have both apps installed in the phone and use either one at will.

Sorenson sure has a loyal following given some of their observed behaviors. Given all of the competition that have comparable if not better service offerings, the loyalty displayed by their community is baffling

CharlesT said:
As for the privacy issue, personally, I don’t really think that the iTRS database provides an enormous amount of privacy. Also, I don’t believe public IPs were/are, due to their very nature, intended to be completely private (kind of like an address that’s displayed on a home or business). Sure maybe the name of the person at that address might be private but the address is visible to anyone. In this case, publicly associating a 10-digit phone number (that’s linked to a public address) without a name, social, or other specific identifying information would only help others communicate with us (the main goal in the first place).

You'll get no argument there.

CharlesT said:
This brings me back to my original point… One of my (and other deaf/hoh friends of mine) main complaints is that hearing family, friends, interpreters, professors, etc cannot call our videophones from either a dedicated piece of hardware, or as stated in this thread, a computer with a web cam. What usually ends up happening is that Skype (or similar) is used. This is a headache as I already have a dedicated piece of hardware that acts as my phone and when a call comes in, I need to get to a PC and use a totally different system. In addition, equally frustrating is that Skype isn’t connected to my flasher/shaker to alert me of incoming calls throughout my house.

Blame the bureaucracy that is today's PSTN network.

Today, the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [nanpa.com] manages the 10 digit dialplan of the PSTN network that you are referring to. It is effectively comprised of two pieces:

1. The Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), distributed by Telcordia.
2. The NPAC database for number portability is run by Neustar through a contract with the government to do so.

The LERG effectively tells carriers the routes between CLLIs, and is what carriers use to populate their switches for call routing.

The NPAC database is used when numbers are "ported" away from the above switches to another provider. A database entry is added to the NPAC database that points to where a phone number now routes, that overrides what would be statically routed in the LERG to a given switch.

There is no public way of accessing either of these pieces of information. You must be a carrier.

What you need to ask yourself is: why isn't there a "golden ENUM tree" for the NANPA dialplan?

I know what you're thinking: e164.arpa, e164.us, e164.org, e164.info, or one of the dozen other ENUM zones out there must surely be it - nope.

Today, for the NANPA dialplan, the closest you get is the Neustar testbed enum.org and the enumllc.com debacle. Notice how the dates are from 5 years ago? Also notice how there has been no movement?

There simply isn't a ENUM solution for the NANPA dialplan.

But this isn't just a domestic thing. At the moment there also isn't a unified global ENUM dialplan. The closest thing to an attempt toward that end right now appears to be nrenum.net, which is presently talking with the education space Internet2 dialplan here in the states.

Today, the Internet2 dialplan is a heirarchical structure of H.323 gatekeepers that LRQ peer to find a given endpoint when dialed. Due to the size of some of these trees, it can take up to _2 minutes_ for the LRQ messages to propagate through the tree. My understanding is that they are working toward an ENUM dialplan to flatten this out and speed up the calls, but this really is only for the educational space to be able to call other videophones at other schools.

Simply put, there is no authorative ENUM dialplan. There are a hodge-podge of carrier and solution-integrator specific peerings with subsets of the above, but it appears politically impossible to get all domestic carriers much less all countries to agree to an exposed VoIP dialplan at this time.

CharlesT said:
While we are in complete agreement that H.323 direct dialing was not a smart decision on the part of the FCC (I think some of the folks making these governmental decisions don’t fully understand the technology they are creating rules for/about), we are currently stuck with it and have no other choice but to use (in my case daily) the system as it exists today. Thus, I’m trying to figure out how to work within these current parameters, rules, regulations, and laws.

As mentioned, I see no reason why the iTRS database needed to be created when they could have just picked a particular e164 database/directory and standardized it (if they didn’t want to get away from IP dialing). It would have saved all the extra lookup fees and it would have allowed hearing people access to our video phones! However, again, they didn’t do that so now I’m trying to figure out if we can do something that will make life easier for those hearing individuals who are willing to purchase inexpensive hardware or software to gain the ability to call us via our 10-digit numbers.

If you have any ideas, I'm open to them.

CharlesT said:
Admittedly, I have a limited experience with this, but was involved with setting up an asterisk gateway with H.323 channel drivers. It allowed hearing individuals to place SIP, and after extended, H.323 calls from anyone to anyone via an ENUM lookup and DNS style resolution through e164.arpa (we also used e164.org as it was super easy to register and maintain records). I didn’t know that the iTRS database doesn’t use SIP URIs or H.323 URLs until you mentioned it (same goes for XLM –RPC reverse lookups, more stupidity), but it shouldn’t matter for my question. Basically, I’m wondering if it might make sense to register our 10-digit numbers with an e164 directory and have standardized software (for use with a web cam) that resolved IP addresses through it. As long as everyone was resolving through the same databases/directories, the hearing public could reach those of us who already have dedicated hardware (e.g. VP-200) that is accessible via a public IP address.

The Asterisk chan_h323 module doesn't do video, only audio. Likewise, yate and freeswitch suffer the same fate. In fact, of all of the opensource VoIP telephony offerings, only gnugk really supports H.323 video channels.

I have been actively using Linux since '93, worked as a telecom engineer now for 15 years, specialized in opensource and VoIP for over 10 years, and I've worked with the gnugk folks to extend it to fully support the Sorenson shenanigans (oh the stories I have) ... I'm probably a few steps ahead of where you are right now.

Contractually, no VRS provider can re-expose the iTRS ENUM records.

This means I couldn't run a "enum.zvrs.com" that allows anyone to look up any deaf videophone. But, I _can_ expose expose an "enum.zvrs.com" that allows anyone to look up the zconnect IP for any ZVRS videophones. It is on my short list of Things To Do.

However, it is one thing to expose an ENUM zone so that people _can_ peer with your endpoint dialplan, it is another to convince them to do so.

That means you would need to convince your videophone dialplan provider to do ENUM lookups to "enum.zvrs.com".

I have a better alternative for you:

For the past year, ZVRS has exposed SRV records for "zvrs.com". Since then, anyone has been able to call any 10 digit phone number using H.323 by dialing the 10 digit phone number "@zvrs.com". For example, "h323:8888881116@zvrs.com" is a perfectly valid H.323 URI that should be dialable from any H.323 videophone capable of URI dialing. Presently, we do not block calls to only call Z video phones. Conceivably, you should be able to call non-Z phones as well using this method. This does use ZVRS network and gateway resources, however, so ZVRS reserves the right to block calls to anything but Z video phones in the future.

Our competitors would need to do the same thing for you to really be able to reach any given deaf videophone without a unified dialplan.

As to how to unify that dialplan beyond iTRS: that's something the FCC really needs to address.

CharlesT said:
If we start with just being able to allow the signing hearing world to access our VPs by using our 10-digit numbers (dialing by IP addresses confuse most individuals) there would be no reason to involve an interpreter. Thus, there wouldn’t be any issues with regards to when to transfer to an interpreter. It’s against the FCC regulations anyway, but also goes against what we are trying to accomplish. I understand this wouldn’t be the top priority of VRS companies as P2P calls don’t them make money, but deaf/hoh being in touch with the signing community (regardless of whether the callers are hearing or deaf/hoh) is important to most of us!

There is also the simple fact that you _can_ call an interpreter by using a VRS "frontdoor phone number" like 8888881116. If you happen to reach someone who cannot sign, you can always hang up, call a frontdoor phone number, and then fingerspell the person you are looking to call.

That is one attractive option, given the limitations of a mixed dialplan.

CharlesT said:
In other words, their softphone would check the e164 directory and if the 10-digit number they were trying to call contained a valid h:323 record the public IP could be resolved and a video setup attempted. If there isn’t an h:323 record, then a call wouldn’t be attempted and an error message returned.

This could even work really nicely with a simple piece of hardware like the DVC-1000 if, instead of using proxy numbers and a private server to obtain an associated IP address, the hardware could resolve through a standard database/directory.

Since we agree that H.323 voice only calls and H.323 video calls only really differ by call setup video negotiation, we can take this one step further. I know many hearing people with IP phones who have a “real” 10-digit phone number. Granted, as you stated, most of these phones are SIP (some support dual stack SIP/H.323), but the point is it’s a “real” phone number and it’s placed in an e.164 database. Thus (as purely and option), if a hearing person chose to pay a small monthly service fee to an IP style phone provider (could even possibly be a VRS provider if they were interested) for “service” (internet routing only, PSTN routing blocked (as can be done with VoIP phones)) they could legally obtain a real (non proxy) 10-digit phone number that would be registered with an e164 service. Then if a VRS company modified their software (or hardware) so that when a call was placed from their videophone it would first attempt to obtain an IP address via the e164 directory (at no charge so I put it first), then if no success an iTRS lookup (and if there still wasn’t success route the call to an interpreter), it would mean that we could directly dial hearing video phones using their 10-digit numbers too.

Who runs it? Who pays for it? What security keeps people from "slamming" numbers, taking them over and pointing them elsewhere?

As mentioned earlier in my reply, these politics are why it hasn't happened yet.

For now, use h323:phonenumber@zvrs.com, and be thankful that ZVRS is willing to offer this feature to the community.

Next, ask yourself why other VRS providers aren't doing the same.

webexplorer · Nov 22, 2011

You are right... I was so surprised that Sorenson really does a dirty job by porting a telephone number for its service. It won't tell you how much it cost to get a new telephone number if you want one, AND it won't give you one neither a fee or free - unless you don't have a Sorenson account. OMG. That's crazy.

CharlesT · Nov 26, 2011

VRSEngineer said:
Sorenson sure has a loyal following given some of their observed behaviors. Given all of the competition that have comparable if not better service offerings, the loyalty displayed by their community is baffling

My take on the huge Sorenson following:
1) In general, the first company to get the public hooked on their goods/services almost always has the largest customer base regardless of their future products/actions.

2) Sorenson was the first company to provide (on a large scale) actual hardware to deaf/hoh users. The softphone solutions are nice, but I’ve talked with MANY (myself included) individuals who prefer to have a “phone” that’s separate from their computer.

3) Sorenson is still the only company who will provide completely free hardware (I know Z and others will provide free hardware if you port a number, but Sorenson doesn’t have any conditions, other than being deaf/hoh). Personally, I would not have a problem paying for hardware (just like we do with smartphones, etc), but I mention it because as soon as any company starts giving away hardware it becomes expected. I can’t tell you how many people I know who VERY strongly believe that they are, and should always be, entitled to free hardware.

4) The average person (hearing or deaf) is not technical so they don’t understand the “shenanigans” that Sorenson has pulled over the years that have hurt (and continue to do so) the deaf/hoh community. For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I was chatting with a local Sorenson installer (I asked my previous ntouch mobile question before posting here) and she didn’t understand what I meant by H.263. Thus, if a Sorenson installer doesn’t understand what’s going on, then there’s no hope for the average user.

I’ve got some more, but rather than derail this thread, I’ll get back to the main topic…

VRSEngineer said:
Today, the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) [nanpa.com] manages the 10 digit dialplan of the PSTN network that you are referring to. It is effectively comprised of two pieces:

1. The Local Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), distributed by Telcordia.
2. The NPAC database for number portability is run by Neustar through a contract with the government to do so.

The LERG effectively tells carriers the routes between CLLIs, and is what carriers use to populate their switches for call routing.

The NPAC database is used when numbers are "ported" away from the above switches to another provider. A database entry is added to the NPAC database that points to where a phone number now routes, that overrides what would be statically routed in the LERG to a given switch.

There is no public way of accessing either of these pieces of information. You must be a carrier.

Ok, understood, and I don’t think it’s necessary to have access without being a carrier to accomplish what we’re talking about. However…

VRSEngineer said:
What you need to ask yourself is: why isn't there a "golden ENUM tree" for the NANPA dialplan?

I know what you're thinking: e164.arpa, e164.us, e164.org, e164.info, or one of the dozen other ENUM zones out there must surely be it - nope.

There simply isn't a ENUM solution for the NANPA dialplan.

...you got me here because I didn’t realize this was the case. With the amount of carriers and companies that use e164.arpa I really thought this was more of a standard and maybe even the “golden ENUM tree”.

VRSEngineer said:
Simply put, there is no authorative ENUM dialplan. There are a hodge-podge of carrier and solution-integrator specific peerings with subsets of the above, but it appears politically impossible to get all domestic carriers much less all countries to agree to an exposed VoIP dialplan at this time.

Wow, what a shame!

CharlesT said:
As mentioned, I see no reason why the iTRS database needed to be created when they could have just picked a particular e164 database/directory and standardized it (if they didn’t want to get away from IP dialing). It would have saved all the extra lookup fees and it would have allowed hearing people access to our video phones! However, again, they didn’t do that so now I’m trying to figure out if we can do something that will make life easier for those hearing individuals who are willing to purchase inexpensive hardware or software to gain the ability to call us via our 10-digit numbers.

VRSEngineer said:
If you have any ideas, I'm open to them.

Actually I do! :lol:

However, I don’t have your knowledge so I think it might be best to get up to speed before continuing down that path. Also, I’d like to first explore some of what you mention about h323 URI dialing below.

VRSEngineer said:
I have been actively using Linux since '93, worked as a telecom engineer now for 15 years, specialized in opensource and VoIP for over 10 years, and I've worked with the gnugk folks to extend it to fully support the Sorenson shenanigans (oh the stories I have) ... I'm probably a few steps ahead of where you are right now.

Lol! When it comes to IP based telecom solutions, I’d say you are probably more than a few steps ahead; I’d put it at more like a light year. :lol:

Which reminds me to again say thanks for all of the great information that you share with all of us on this board.

VRSEngineer said:
This means I couldn't run a "enum.zvrs.com" that allows anyone to look up any deaf videophone. But, I _can_ expose expose an "enum.zvrs.com" that allows anyone to look up the zconnect IP for any ZVRS videophones. It is on my short list of Things To Do.

I don’t have one yet, so I’m not certain I understand fully the concept behind a zconnect IP. Is it possibly a public IP address that routes to/thru Z’s gateway?

VRSEngineer said:
However, it is one thing to expose an ENUM zone so that people _can_ peer with your endpoint dialplan, it is another to convince them to do so.

Understood, but I’m pretty certain that this could be done (maybe slowly at first) because it would solve a real problem common to all deaf/hoh users. I know I could contact a large number of friends, family, etc. who would gladly make the change if it was actually doable.

VRSEngineer said:
That means you would need to convince your videophone dialplan provider to do ENUM lookups to "enum.zvrs.com".

Right, more on this below…

VRSEngineer said:
I have a better alternative for you:

For the past year, ZVRS has exposed SRV records for "zvrs.com". Since then, anyone has been able to call any 10 digit phone number using H.323 by dialing the 10 digit phone number "@zvrs.com". For example, "h323:8888881116@zvrs.com" is a perfectly valid H.323 URI that should be dialable from any H.323 videophone capable of URI dialing. Presently, we do not block calls to only call Z video phones. Conceivably, you should be able to call non-Z phones as well using this method. This does use ZVRS network and gateway resources, however, so ZVRS reserves the right to block calls to anything but Z video phones in the future.

Wow! Ok, now we are getting somewhere! However, can a hearing person legally use this method of connecting since it would require an iTRS lookup? If so, do you know of any video conferencing hardware (non-VRS specific that hearing people can buy/use) that supports URI dialing?

VRSEngineer said:
Our competitors would need to do the same thing for you to really be able to reach any given deaf videophone without a unified dialplan.

Lol, and we both know that’s going to happen! :shock:

VRSEngineer said:
As to how to unify that dialplan beyond iTRS: that's something the FCC really needs to address.

Agreed, and IMHO should have already been addressed!

VRSEngineer said:
There is also the simple fact that you _can_ call an interpreter by using a VRS "frontdoor phone number" like 8888881116. If you happen to reach someone who cannot sign, you can always hang up, call a frontdoor phone number, and then fingerspell the person you are looking to call.

That is one attractive option, given the limitations of a mixed dialplan.

Wait a second, I was referring to a hearing person and they are not supposed to be connecting to video interpreters (and there isn’t any reason to do so).

VRSEngineer said:
Who runs it? Who pays for it? What security keeps people from "slamming" numbers, taking them over and pointing them elsewhere?

As mentioned earlier in my reply, these politics are why it hasn't happened yet.

Good points, but I’ve got some ideas… As for the politics… Aarrggghhhhh!

VRSEngineer said:
For now, use h323:phonenumber@zvrs.com, and be thankful that ZVRS is willing to offer this feature to the community.

Next, ask yourself why other VRS providers aren't doing the same.

I am very thankful indeed! I’m certain that I’m not alone in not having any idea that URI dialing through ZVRS was/is possible! As for why others aren’t doing the same (1) it requires having really good technical engineers on staff, and (2) it’s kind of difficult to manipulate an industry (including the FCC) and force people into (or keep them) using proprietary hardware/software when implementing open source concepts.

CharlesT · Nov 26, 2011

webexplorer said:
You are right... I was so surprised that Sorenson really does a dirty job by porting a telephone number for its service. It won't tell you how much it cost to get a new telephone number if you want one, AND it won't give you one neither a fee or free - unless you don't have a Sorenson account. OMG. That's crazy.

Are you saying that if you port your phone number to another provider from Sorenson, you are put on some black list such that Sorenson won't ever provide numbers/services to you in the future? Or were you trying to port to Sorenson?

webexplorer · Nov 26, 2011

CharlesT said:
Are you saying that if you port your phone number to another provider from Sorenson, you are put on some black list such that Sorenson won't ever provide numbers/services to you in the future? Or were you trying to port to Sorenson?

I made a mistake on my writing. I really think that it is not necessary for Sorenson to make us to bring our number back in order to get a Ntouch VP. (I got the Z-20 with my number.) It is so ridiculous for both companies to focus on number first and then give us a videophone just like treat us a candy. That's creepy business.

My hearing mother switched to a different telephone company service and she had to gave up her telephone number in order to get a new telephone number. She doesn't pay a fee for the new telephone number. Isn't that right? If so, how we compare to our videophone services? i.e. a free number or give us a candy for the porting number. blah blah

TechBill · Nov 26, 2011

webexplorer said:
I made a mistake on my writing. I really think that it is not necessary for Sorenson to make us to bring our number back in order to get a Ntouch VP. (I got the Z-20 with my number.) It is so ridiculous for both companies to focus on number first and then give us a videophone just like treat us a candy. That's creepy business.

My hearing mother switched to a different telephone company service and she had to gave up her telephone number in order to get a new telephone number. She doesn't pay a fee for the new telephone number. Isn't that right? If so, how we compare to our videophone services? i.e. a free number or give us a candy for the porting number. blah blah

I can see why .....

Sorenson - Gives out Free VP + Number

Other VRS - Charge $$$ for VP + Number unless you port from Sorenson only

So anyone can get free VP from Sorenson then port number to other VRS to avoid pay other VRS $$$$

It seem to me that they are taking advantage of Sorenson offer for FREE to avoid paying $$$ by porting to OTHER VRS for thier VP then they hope they can get another number from Sorenson to keep their Sorenson VP.

Do you seriously think once someone take advantage of that to avoid paying other VRS for their VP that Sorenson want to give you ANOTHER free number again?

Maybe if Sorenson give you second free number then they go run off and get a different other VRS for free then go back Sorenson ask for third free number eh?

My question to you ....

Why don't other VRS offer their VP + number to you for free too and not force you port number that Sorenson gave to you for free?????

.

CharlesT · Nov 26, 2011

TechBill said:
My question to you ....

Why don't other VRS offer their VP + number to you for free too and not force you port number that Sorenson gave to you for free?????

There's a VERY SIMPLE answer to this question. All of these decisions are purely business decisions, plain and simple! Sorenson wanted a large percentage of the market and decided that, to accomplish their goal, it was/is worth it to spend large amounts of money and provide free videophones. In return for their investment they captured approximately 80% of the current market. In other words it worked (as I noted in my earlier post). However, this doesn’t mean that they can keep their market share or even that it will always be thought of as a good idea. Regardless, I think people ignoring the fact that EVERY company needs to make money to stay in business. Yes, it’s even true of non-profit companies! I have seen more than one go out of business because they lacked the necessary operating capital. Thus, these decisions are of a purely business nature, period.

Now my request… PLEASE let’s not hijack this topic/thread and continue on and on about this as there are plenty of other threads discussing these matters. If we can get back to the original topic of the “Best way for hearing person to use PC webcam to call deaf/HoH VRS number?” we might just be able to collectively come up with something that can solve a problem that plagues all of us.

CharlesT · Nov 27, 2011

VRSEngineer said:
ZVRS, for example, assigns every customer a unique "ZConnect" IP address in their cloud.

In my earlier post I asked about the ZConnect IP. I re-read an earlier message and understand the proxy concept, but I’m still a bit confused about how a single IP in the cloud can be used to signal individual phones each with their own 10-digit numbers. Maybe I’m just reading this too literally and it’s not every customer that gets a unique ZConnect IP but instead every VP/10-digit number (of Z customers) is assigned one?

VRSEngineer said:
For example, "h323:8888881116@zvrs.com" is a perfectly valid H.323 URI that should be dialable from any H.323 videophone capable of URI dialing.

Also, I’m also still confused about the legalities involved if a hearing person dials an H.323 URI (such as the one you listed above). Please understand that I’m not trying to impede a good thing, only that I’ve got an idea or two and I’m trying to make certain everything will fly with the FCC. In other words, since the URI dialing would require an iTRS lookup to get the deaf/hoh person’s IP address, wouldn't they consider this as hearing people using government funds?

While I’m asking questions, I’ve got another… I’ve been reading about Z’s 1Number and am curious about the primary number selection. Particularly, if one were to port their Sorenson VP-200 local number to Z and keep the VP-200 (i.e. instead of trading it for a Z-20 –yes I understand about the contacts problem and other headaches, but I’ve got a specific application in mind where VP-200 hardware must be used) could they then use their original VP-200 number (again, now ported to Z) as their primary 1Number? So as to keep with my own request, lol, if this requires a lengthy detailed response, please advise and I’ll just start a new thread so we can keep to the original topic… :ty:

VRSEngineer · Nov 27, 2011

CharlesT said:
In my earlier post I asked about the ZConnect IP. I re-read an earlier message and understand the proxy concept, but I’m still a bit confused about how a single IP in the cloud can be used to signal individual phones each with their own 10-digit numbers. Maybe I’m just reading this too literally and it’s not every customer that gets a unique ZConnect IP but instead every VP/10-digit number (of Z customers) is assigned one?

Correct. Every Z phone gets a ZConnect IP assigned to it (from an IP address pool in the cloud), as well as a 10 digit phone number. This IP is put into the iTRS database for that 10 digit phone number (for deaf/HoH customers only, hearing customers are not put into the iTRS database). Your friends can actually call you at your ZConnect IP address if they happen to know it.

CharlesT said:
Also, I’m also still confused about the legalities involved if a hearing person dials an H.323 URI (such as the one you listed above). Please understand that I’m not trying to impede a good thing, only that I’ve got an idea or two and I’m trying to make certain everything will fly with the FCC. In other words, since the URI dialing would require an iTRS lookup to get the deaf/hoh person’s IP address, wouldn't they consider this as hearing people using government funds?

ZVRS is not exposing the iTRS database: you will have no knowledge of the called party's IP address: your non-Z videophone will only see the IP address of the ZVRS gateway when it places the URI call. As the ZVRS gateway is paid for as part of the cost of doing business, this overhead cost is eaten, basically the same as every P2P call to/from Z phones also incurs network overhead which is eaten.

CharlesT said:
While I’m asking questions, I’ve got another… I’ve been reading about Z’s 1Number and am curious about the primary number selection. Particularly, if one were to port their Sorenson VP-200 local number to Z and keep the VP-200 (i.e. instead of trading it for a Z-20 –yes I understand about the contacts problem and other headaches, but I’ve got a specific application in mind where VP-200 hardware must be used) could they then use their original VP-200 number (again, now ported to Z) as their primary 1Number? So as to keep with my own request, lol, if this requires a lengthy detailed response, please advise and I’ll just start a new thread so we can keep to the original topic…

When you port a phone number away from the VP200, Sorenson disables most of its functionality. Sorenson is also a rather problematic when it comes to assigning a new 10 digit number to that VP200 after the number has been ported away. Honestly, I can't talk to what the limitations are, but I know it has plagued customers in the past.

To answer your question: yes, if you port a 10 digit phone number from a VP200 to a Z phone and make it a 1Number primary, you can add an iTRS member type phone: but that requires a 10 digit number in the iTRS database for whatever phone you wish to be a member. That requires that the VP200 to have a 10 digit phone number in iTRS, which is brought into question in the above paragraph.

CharlesT · Nov 28, 2011

VRSEngineer said:
ZVRS is not exposing the iTRS database: you will have no knowledge of the called party's IP address: your non-Z videophone will only see the IP address of the ZVRS gateway when it places the URI call. As the ZVRS gateway is paid for as part of the cost of doing business, this overhead cost is eaten, basically the same as every P2P call to/from Z phones also incurs network overhead which is eaten.

Fantastic! Glad to hear that as long as the iTRS database isn't exposed the FCC doesn't have a problem with it. That being the case, this entire dilemma becomes much easier to solve! It seems like enum zones and NAPTR records can, at this point, be forgotten (in this thread). All that would need to happen is for a provider to create software (for use by hearing people that can sign) that allows only P2P calls placed to 10-digit numbers which are in the iTRS database. I understand that the VRS companies don’t make money on P2P calls, but the infrastructure is already there and if they charged a small fee (say $25) for the software, it would probably go a very long way toward increasing their reputation. Most likely this would lead to more deaf/hoh customers using their services and ultimately placing VRS calls with that company.

I understand that the drawback would be that deaf/hoh VP users wouldn’t be able to call these hearing users by a a 10-digit number, but it would certainly solve an issue that regularly presents itself and was the reason this thread was started in the first place. I can tell you that if hearing members of my family, friends, etc. could purchase a software or app for a one time reasonable fee and be able to call my VP by it’s 10-digit number they would jump at the chance!

As for the VP-200 porting question, I’ve got more but am going to start a new thread.

gnuuser · Jan 1, 2012

purple vrs is an app you can download for pc or mac ,or for android tablets or smartphones

i downloaded it for my vizio tablet pc so my fiance can use my tablet as a vrs cellphone (anywhere there is wifi signal)
and it works great
if you are deaf or hard of hearing you can get a vrs number for free!

Best way for hearing person to use PC webcam to call deaf/HoH VRS number?

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member