MVP HOT SPOT (WIFI ONLY) Discussion

If Purple representatives encounter customers who are experiencing unlawful scare tactics from Sorenson, such as:

Customer had an upgrade to Sorenson firmware and hovrs.tv/spanishhovrs.tv was removed from the VP 100/200 without customers’ knowledge.

Sorenson rep removing hovrs.tv/spanishhovrs.tv from customers’ VP after servicing the VP on-site.

Told by Sorenson rep, that the customer can only use Sorenson as his/her VRS provider and if the customer uses Hands on VRS or any other VRS provider, his/her VP 100/200 would be taken away by Sorenson.

Determine if the customer is willing to sign an FCC Declarations Document. This declaration would be treated as confidential and customer’s name not made publicly available.

Explain the truth to the customer.
 
If Purple representatives encounter customers who are experiencing unlawful scare tactics from Sorenson, such as:

Customer had an upgrade to Sorenson firmware and hovrs.tv/spanishhovrs.tv was removed from the VP 100/200 without customers’ knowledge.

Sorenson rep removing hovrs.tv/spanishhovrs.tv from customers’ VP after servicing the VP on-site.

Told by Sorenson rep, that the customer can only use Sorenson as his/her VRS provider and if the customer uses Hands on VRS or any other VRS provider, his/her VP 100/200 would be taken away by Sorenson.

Determine if the customer is willing to sign an FCC Declarations Document. This declaration would be treated as confidential and customer’s name not made publicly available.

Explain the truth to the customer.

Do you have any link to support this arguement?
 
Do you want to read this FCC Declarations Document?
 
It has nothing to do with his sn if he doesn't work for Purple Communiations Inc.
 
You still have banned right now. no discussion again. :lol:
 
yes, Sorenson was angry against Purple. If Sorenson installer will remove out "Hovrs.tv" on address book in client's SP-200, client will sign agreement against Sorenson and will send it to FCC. FCC may be fine to them.

cool!
 
Chevy57 meant, if a personell saves hovrs.tv into the address book on SVP200, and the SVP200 rejects the saving, which is against the FCC law. The Personell has the right to sign the agreement against Sorenson. Chevy57 knows about sorenson, he was former installer, few years back.

What if customer change his/her mind and doesn't want HOVRS.tv on the address listing on VP 200?
 
soresnon instsaller not allow to remove any names in address book

That's correct. However, customer wants to remove HOVRS.TV or other other VRS from the listing on VP 200. It is his/her responsibility to remove them himself/herself. It is not sorenson installer's responsibility...hands off.
 
what? why all is we talkin about SORENSON VS HOVRS but what about other VRS Provide if they want to remove their VRS Provide on their SVP-200! I thinking about we need a new thread... why did we blaming on Sorenson VS Hovrs for? We need to respect their opinion, I mean it!
 
yes, Sorenson was angry against Purple. If Sorenson installer will remove out "Hovrs.tv" on address book in client's SP-200, client will sign agreement against Sorenson and will send it to FCC. FCC may be fine to them.

Also I saw on video customer have a SVP200, it's says "NO SVRS ACCOUNT" and 3 new features..

Very lucky, the SVRS cannot upgrade the firmware because my VP200 are non-designated port forwards or DMZ. it's only goes to MVP, My SVRS's 10 digits stays on. The MVP checking firmware from Purple Commications. Sorenson cannot upload firmware to my SVP200 they're not in "designated" ports. it's good safe!
 
Also I saw on video customer have a SVP200, it's says "NO SVRS ACCOUNT" and 3 new features..

Very lucky, the SVRS cannot upgrade the firmware because my VP200 are non-designated port forwards or DMZ. it's only goes to MVP, My SVRS's 10 digits stays on. The MVP checking firmware from Purple Commications. Sorenson cannot upload firmware to my SVP200 they're not in "designated" ports. it's good safe!

no svrs account local number is port out
 
Back
Top