Reply Comments

[qwerty123]

Reply Comments, CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123

5/2/2005 - The following reply comments are available in response to the Commission’s March 1, 2005 Public Notice seeking comment on the petition of the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing regarding interoperability among Video Relay Services. The National Association of the Deaf believes that blocking practices should be prohibited and directory lists opened up. Hamilton Relay believes that a Commission decision barring providers from blocking IP addresses will accomplish the goal of prohibiting VRS providers from restricting customers to a single VRS provider.

CA Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf
Communication Services for the Deaf
Hamilton Relay
Hands on Video Relay Service
National Association of the Deaf
Sorenson Media
Telecommunications for the Deaf
Ultratec

 

[Dennis S.]

A good read. Lots of stuff to wade through, compelling arguments on both sides of the issue (though a bit one sided against Sorenson).

Hmm, did anyone notice this:

"In addition, when CSD has sought permission to modify D-Link firmware to improve upon the features and/or functionality of these units, D-Link has refused because of its agreements and restrictions currently in place with Sorenson Media."

From CSD's response, page 13.


Does anyone else now realize why none of the free DVC-1000's from any of the other VRS providers like Sprint never had any customizations?

 

[qwerty123]

Sorenson helped DLINK developed the firmware, hence the silly license agreement btween these two.

Whats more - Sorenson offered as a third possiblity that other VRS providers can use VP100 of there is agreement between Sorenson and other provider (Sorenson's Reply Comments, page17, middle paragraph).

Sorenson commented a lot about protecting the development on VRS technology especially the videophones while all other providers did nothing much.

HOVRS incorrectly mentioned that there is ONLY ONE (Sorenson) who is against the petition. Well, there are a number of people who filed comments saying that they wanted to keep Sorenson as is. (HOVRS's Reply Comments page 1). Reading the HOVRS do indicates a few areas that Sorenson and HOVRS once worked together (see footnotes and several confidental email exchanges between Pat Nola and Ron OBray). DLINK and Sorenson LDAP uses the same Sorenson's servers. Interesting

Yep, its a good read. My opinion still stands- Sorenson will win anyway.

A good read. Lots of stuff to wade through, compelling arguments on both sides of the issue (though a bit one sided against Sorenson).

Hmm, did anyone notice this:

"In addition, when CSD has sought permission to modify D-Link firmware to improve upon the features and/or functionality of these units, D-Link has refused because of its agreements and restrictions currently in place with Sorenson Media."

From CSD's response, page 13.


Does anyone else now realize why none of the free DVC-1000's from any of the other VRS providers like Sprint never had any customizations?

 

[Dennis S.]

Sorenson commented a lot about protecting the development on VRS technology especially the videophones while all other providers did nothing much.

What development? Under FCC rules, they can't get back their investment on the equipment technology, they can only be reimbursed for the VRS service.

Sorenson refuses to sell their equipment through other channels, so they aren't recouping their costs through normal, competitive means that TTY manufacturers, webcam manufacturers, and other assistive devices go through. So, how are they doing it? By misleading the FCC and hiding behind an anti-competitive agreement?

There is no "3rd possibility" as long as Sorenson wants to dominate the VRS market. Why would you make a deal with your competition if it would erode your market share and profitability?

 

[NightwarriorJin]

HOVRS incorrectly mentioned that there is ONLY ONE (Sorenson) who is against the petition. Well, there are a number of people who filed comments saying that they wanted to keep Sorenson as is. (HOVRS's Reply Comments page 1). Reading the HOVRS do indicates a few areas that Sorenson and HOVRS once worked together (see footnotes and several confidental email exchanges between Pat Nola and Ron OBray). DLINK and Sorenson LDAP uses the same Sorenson's servers. Interesting

I think what they mean is by major well-aware company like NAD, VRS providers, deaf agency, etc. Name any agency, not an individual, that support Sorenson's point of view.

However I want to point out that I do support Sorenson's position in Speed of Answer. I am still unsure about the interoperity tho. Both side have a valid points.