Discussion in 'Deaf Products & Technologies' started by TechBill, Jun 20, 2009.
what the hell
i knew it
something fishing at sorenson
Why do they have to run to the FCC when they could have tried getting this resolved with Sorenson?
It's something that we some suspect of Sorenson the one caused FCC to delay the deadline for the compliance with the interoperability order (10-digital numbers).
So it's not a surprise here, really... shame on them as usual.
Nov. 2009 date has to be the real deadline for the sake. :roll:
Other VP users and VRS providers will only be able to see the IP address, not the 10 digit number. By allegedly doing this, Sorenson is preventing the deaf consumers of having equivalent access to telephone features that hearing persons are able to use. Furthermore, this also means that when Caller IDs are not shown to other VRS providers (that are not Sorenson), this will cause potentially delayed and even refusal of 911 calls.
If true, this not only violates the FCC’s mandates, but also violates the American Disabilities Act and puts VRS users at risk.
The three VRS companies believe Sorenson is deliberately doing this based on two reasons:
Sorenson is allegedly hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data.
Sorenson has ignored repeated requests for clarification from other companies on this matter, with the exception of responding once, pointing to a still pending proposal, ‘Relay Provider Interface’.
Sorenson did the same thing in the past with blocking other VRS'es being able to use sorenson vp100/vp200 to use other VRS providers. FCC says wake up and open up. They did. Now sorenson is blocking other VRS'es features with thier vp100/vp200. We as deaf/HOH population as a whole should be able to have the right to use any videophones the same way hearing use any cellphones/landline phones. We should be able to use any Videophones with standard features like call waiting, call history, caller ID, standard same phone directory, phone numbers, mail messages (includes for hearing and deaf messages).
Sorenson was contacted prior to filing a complaint
An excellent question from Brian and I passionately believe in the idea of going to the FCC only after trying to work things out between parties. As Snap's counsel, I have worked with Sorenson on a number of issues of mutual interest. In our complaint against Sorenson, we describe how I (and Purple) contacted Sorenson to resolve their videophones' failure to pass through Caller ID information and did not get a straight answer from Sorenson. Other people have contacted Sorenson to ask about the issue, but have been brushed aside by Sorenson with a "no comment", see:
Complaint Filed Against Sorenson The Deaf Edge
Even after filing the complaint, I am continuing to communicate with Sorenson and keeping alive the possibility of resolving this without FCC's intervention; the goal here is for Sorenson to fix its non-compliant vp as quickly as possible. For many years, people had to struggle with Sorenson's system of proxy (fake) numbers which they could not use to call others using different videophones. The FCC established a ten digit number requirement so that we could become equal to the phone system hearing people use in that they use ten digit numbers to call each other, rather than difficult to use IP address. However, the failure to pass through Caller ID means that people, hearing or deaf, will still not be able to see the ten digit numbers of the caller using a Sorenson videophone. Sorenson's vps have been engineered in a way that their phone numbers information is hidden and does not show up on a different vp or to a hearing person's cell phone or on their caller IDs. Other videophones like Snap's Ojos clearly show the call recipient what their ten digit number is. We describe in the complaint why this makes a big difference among consumers to have their phone numbers passed through to the other end.
Thats not good for deaf people, its not in compliance with FCC rules and its not acceptable by providers like Snap who invested significant amounts of money to make their videophones compatible with Sorenson VPs - we fully expect Sorenson to do the same thing and make their vps compliant with FCC standards and properly interoperable with other vps. Sorenson can quickly make this engineering change on their own, and do the right thing for us all.
Wow, no surprise but I do like Sorenson relay service because more easier to request for live rep.
If you read the petition and you will see that they had already made attempts to resolve this with Sorenson before filing the petition.
Like deafironchef says, "what the hell?"
I agree with him....I just shaking my head and thinking what is wrong with Sorenson. I have a feeling and suspected that Sorenson covering it up and wanted to delay the June 30th deadline until November so they can have their engineers to work on getting the Caller ID working properly. That would take a long time to get it fixed. I don't know how fast engineers at Sorenson will complete their work. If Sorenson really purposedly covered it up and delayed the June 30th deadline, they would be in whole lot of trouble!
If Sorenson really did it, shame on them!
Hmmmm I wonder what "Pro-Sorenson" qwerty would going to say about this....Hmmmm LOL
Hi Jeff Rosen,
I can understand that SnapVRS and other VRS had invested a lot of money to get the products to be compatible with VP200. But, Sorenson should of gotten the message long time ago and should have their engineers to work on the problem right away. One question: Did Sorenson requested FCC to delay the June 30th deadline until November so they can fix the problem with proxy numbers AND Caller ID? I thought maybe you would wonder if this was the action done by Sorenson to have a reason to delay it? I always thought the June 30th deadline that ALL VRS industries, which includes ZVRS, Purple, Snap and many others; must have 10 digit numbers turned on to all videophones.
Thank you for posting with clarification and hope to hear from you soon.
My Purple Communications said they drafted the petition worked very hard to get a majority of the providers to sign on to the petition to extend the deadline. As a result, AT&T, CAC, CSDVRS, Hamilton, Snap, Sprint & Viable signed on to the original petition urging the FCC to extend the deadline. We argued that technical and outreach barriers remained in processing individuals’ registrations for phone numbers. Without the extension, countless deaf and hard of hearing individuals would immediately be cut off from the nation’s telephony network. Sorenson took a contrary view and said that the extension was not needed. This was despite information that shows that so many callers (for some providers, as many as 95%) were not yet registered. We believe that it is unconscionable that so many people would be denied the ability to make phone calls.
Despite Sorenson’s opposition, we were able to persuade the FCC to extend the deadline. This will ensure Commission and the industry have more time to address technical and outreach-education concerns.
They take time to work with converison process to request 10-digital numbers of new customers for VP (MVP, P3 Network and Video Relay) and Text Relay (i711 and IP-relay)
After deadline on November 12, All VRS or Text Relay providers must disconnect any deaf users s VP or mobile who are not yet registered 10-digital numbers.
Not more delay after November 12.
I kind of disagree with everything about deadline. The reason.. I believe it SHOULD DISCONNECTED those people...
I understand some people can be clueless due the text isn't a sign to clarity with among Deaf Communities.
I felt like the VRS is giving Deaf people who isn't responsible or depend people for their help. It like VRS is their diaper and taking care of them until they are grow up enough. Know what I am saying?
It's long battle, I see.
Well SnapVRS have their own problems to focus on... Took SNAPVRS a long long time to even give people the 10 digit numbers !! Talk about last minute !!! People got theiir 10 digit numbers from Sorenson within 15 mins !!! Answer that one Rosen..
Red Wolf, Chevy 57 gave a good answer about the extension of the registration deadline, will look to see if you have any follow up questions or comments.
SouthFella, you are right, it took Snap!VRS (and many other VRS providers) some time to get up to speed with provisioning consumers with ten digit numbers. The FCC made it clear that the cost of the ten digit numbers itself (acquisition, assignment & maintenance) is not a reimbursable expense. Providers had to change their budget in midstream to absorb this significant cost, then negotiate agreements with a nationwide company which would make ten digit numbers available for providers to assign to consumers. Those numbering companies have considerably high monthly minimums, yet at best can only cover approximately 80% of the country. In many areas, providers have to negotiate another agreement with that local numbering company, which can become a drain on limited time and resources to support if only a few customers in a specific location need numbers. Providers had to implement a operating plan to allow consumers to sign up for numbers. Then those consumers had to verify their address for E911 purposes.
I'm not making excuses for those providers like us, just showing that it was a lot of effort and cost involved to get off the ground. Providers like Sorenson which have more resources available to them were able to quickly race ahead to keep their customers.
Snap!VRS now typically has a same day turn around time for provisioning numbers. Unless, like all other providers, Sorenson included, a number is requested by consumers who live in certain geographical areas where its difficult to assign numbers. Sorenson recently petitioned the FCC to allow it to assign "guest" numbers to cover consumers who live outside the areas covered by its numbering provider (I believe they use a company called Level 3 Communications, which is the same company Snap!VRS uses).
Appreciate the opportunity to discuss a bit about the nuts and bolts involved in provisioning ten digit numbers.
Thank you Rosen and Chevy for clarification. I understand it now.
Your post above is very much appreciated. Thanks
So, Sorenson saw it as a priority to provide 10 digit numbers in a speedy fashion. While other VP providers crawled along in doing so. VP providers have had years to get ready for this ( at least one year and a half ).
However, Sorenson did not see it a priority to enable those ten digit numbers to properly pass through to other VPs or to hearing call recipients, choosing to keep those ten digit numbers hidden in a non-standard location of the data string contrary to the industry tech standards are for hearing or deaf telecommunications devices. Thats the entire point of the complaint against Sorenson.
While its up to consumers to decide how to respond to Sorenson's non-compliant devices, our complaint asks the FCC to order Sorenson to stop violating the ADA and remedy the VP200s so that everyone - whether another VRS, deaf person using a different VP, emergency personnel, workplace, health center, family, friends - all can clearly get the ten digit number passed through the Sorenson VP200.
As pointed out in the complaint, one objective in the ten digit numbering was to break free of the Sorenson's closed telephone directory and the use of proxy ("fake") numbers to make it difficult for people to easily call each other by needing to use a changing and hard to identify IP address instead of a real phone number. Sorenson's failure to pass through the number continues this long standing practice of degrading access to its customers by other people outside of the Sorenson network.
And folks, please dont misunderstand me, I'm not trying to use this issue to oppose Sorenson as a company, just taking a stand against their illegitimate practice of failing to pass through Caller IDs. If Sorenson wants to do business as a relay provider, it must follow the rules as is expected for everyone else.
Separate names with a comma.