TRS Filings on Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123

qwerty123

qwerty123

Active Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
0
Comments, CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123

4/18/2005 - The Following comments are available on ECFS regarding the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by California Coalition regarding VRS interoperability. Communications Services for the Deaf and Hands on Video Relay services support the petition. Hamilton Relay indicates the problem is a restrictive marketing practice that can be resolved by issuing a ruling prohibiting VRS providers from blocking the IP addresses of other VRS providers.


Communications Svcs for the Deaf http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_11.pdf

Hamilton Relay
http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_13.pdf

Hands On Video Relay Svcs
http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_12.pdf


Richard - your agency OCDAC has no bang, no substance, no teeth, when it comes to FCC filing. you submited your one-page comment, therefore you're way down in the deaf society ladder. What you have large signature "Richard Roehm" for?
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6517497346 :bump:
http://www.deafadvocacy.com/fcc033105.pdf as of 5:10 pm PST on April 18, it shows "Error 404".
 
What's your point, qwerty? Those documents are written by the very companies whose best interest is to respond as strongly as possible.

Do 40 page legal documents deserve to be more important than the voice of the community that is being served by the FCC? I don't think so.

I think they should be less important, because those relay companies stand to profit from the FCC by doing so. The community at least is the target audience to be served by this kind of decision, so their voice is important. OCDEAF represents their community, whether you agree with them or not.

For what it's worth, OCDeaf's filing will be taken as seriously as CSD's filing, big signature or not.
 
qwerty123 said:
Richard - your agency OCDAC has no bang, no substance, no teeth, when it comes to FCC filing. you submited your one-page comment, therefore you're way down in the deaf society ladder. What you have large signature "Richard Roehm" for?
Click to expand...

Spoken like an old guard cheerleader.

I may soon pass around everyone a link to a video of a sweet old lady complaining about Sorenson. I'm sure this will have a big impact. Sorenson already knows about the video and I'll trust their Geneaology to respond to me about it.

And the doc file that has yet to be posted on FCC's site is going to look like this without my big signature on it.

Richard
 
Last edited:
Grantmakers tend to favor grant proposals less than 5 pages long over proposals looking like telephone books.

Same things with TRS comments. A one page comment that goes straight to the point beats out comments lasting 40-50 pages.

Richard
 
Nesmuth said:
Grantmakers tend to favor grant proposals less than 5 pages long over proposals looking like telephone books.

Same things with TRS comments. A one page comment that goes straight to the point beats out comments lasting 40-50 pages.

Richard
Click to expand...

Youre mixing oil with water. I support grants of 5 pages or less for simplicity and easier approval. Even the FCC comments are like telephone books, they are more details and FCC will learn and benefit more than the one-page comment. Then there would be no ping pong stuff and more solid for the VRS future. There is one pending FCC filiing that ask for more clairfication on Sorenson's call back practice since FCC says no to call backs but Soreson is still practcing.

Will FCC listen to your reply comments on Ken Crane (whatever his name) of Colorado that he took out your advocacy section out of www.deafnewspaper.com? You re simply a moocher to his web site. you got your own web site.

FYI, the highest number of pages is 37, not 40-50 pages.
 
qwerty123 said:
Will FCC listen to your reply comments on Ken Crane (whatever his name) of Colorado that he took out your advocacy section out of www.deafnewspaper.com? You re simply a moocher to his web site. you got your own web site.
Click to expand...

I know FCC dont like intimidation and I just handed them a case of one to look at.

Richard
 
Nesmuth said:
I know FCC dont like intimidation and I just handed them a case of one to look at.

Richard
Click to expand...

So you dont admit that you're a moocher, but a simple single sheet case to show to FCC?

Take a look at Deaf258's avastar. That is so you.
 
Nesmuth said:
I know FCC dont like intimidation and I just handed them a case of one to look at.

Richard
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot more effective to give them 50 cases, all signed affidavits from complainers? One complaint is an error to be corrected, 50 complaints is a sign of a problem with the company.

While I don't see the FCC taking action on "one case of intimidation" I think it's better than none, but Richard, maybe next time you can give them 50?

That's what my state agency does when they want to get their point across -- get signed complaints or letters, compile a HUGE stack of them (like 200 or so) then go to the office that makes the decisions and SLAMS them down on their desk. Try slamming one piece of paper down and make an impact like that. They don't ignore the big stacks of "intimidation cases"
 
Dennis said:
Wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot more effective to give them 50 cases, all signed affidavits from complainers? One complaint is an error to be corrected, 50 complaints is a sign of a problem with the company.

While I don't see the FCC taking action on "one case of intimidation" I think it's better than none, but Richard, maybe next time you can give them 50?

That's what my state agency does when they want to get their point across -- get signed complaints or letters, compile a HUGE stack of them (like 200 or so) then go to the office that makes the decisions and SLAMS them down on their desk. Try slamming one piece of paper down and make an impact like that. They don't ignore the big stacks of "intimidation cases"
Click to expand...

Yahh, Dennis. Giving one case of ittimidation to FCC would not give a bang, but 50 to 200 documented cases or even more would do. You have scored more points than Richard.
 
Link to Sorenson filing with FCC, 42 pages long.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6517520003

Richard - enjoy reading this telephone book.

qwerty123 said:
Comments, CC Docket Nos. 98-67 and 03-123

4/18/2005 - The Following comments are available on ECFS regarding the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by California Coalition regarding VRS interoperability. Communications Services for the Deaf and Hands on Video Relay services support the petition. Hamilton Relay indicates the problem is a restrictive marketing practice that can be resolved by issuing a ruling prohibiting VRS providers from blocking the IP addresses of other VRS providers.

Communications Svcs for the Deaf http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_11.pdf

Hamilton Relay
http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_13.pdf

Hands On Video Relay Svcs
http://www.neca.org/wawatch/wwpdf/041805_12.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Here's my one page reply filing with my fat signature on it. Sorenson's filing has a lot of distractive elements that tries to cast a fog over the real issue behind this petition.

When I post my case of intimidation, others shall follow. It worked well with the other WAI campaigns. It takes time and patience. Most folks prefer jurisprudence and that dont work well these days.

Richard
 
qwerty123 said:
Link to Sorenson filing with FCC, 42 pages long.

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6517520003

Richard - enjoy reading this telephone book.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Sorenson filing wrong highlights certain points as "inaccuracies of the Petitioner" (i.e., saying that VP-100's CAN accept incoming VRS calls from other VRS providers -- while conveniently not mentioning that it's more difficult because it's not phone number based, it's IP address based -- that's NOT an industry standard for relay), they also give information that can be interpreted as false in their filing:

1) Pg 6, "when making intrastate TTY calls, the consumer has no choice except to use the provider that has been selected for their state." is incorrect. You can use whomever you want, it's just when you dial 7-1-1, the states have directed the 7-1-1 to go to the state relay provider. You can still dial any relay provider you want from any TTY, and make inter OR intra state calls.

2) Pg 8: "... live technical support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year". Their live technical support is not available 24 hours a day, last I checked, and nothing on their website mentions this. Has that changed? I doubt it.

3) Pg 9, talking about CapTel: "... the Commission did not require the company to make its equipment interoperable with new providers when they emerged." First off, there ARE no other CapTel manufacturers. If another company wanted to create their own CapTel device, they CAN do so, AND I bet that the FCC will require interoperability. You would then have your choice of 800 numbers to call for CapTel service just like you would for TTYs.

The point stands that as of this time, no other company HAS made their own CapTel device, whereas in VRS, there ARE other devices available. If Sorenson didn't allow DVC-1000s to be made, it would be a whole different ballgame for the FCC to play with right now.

Those are the first 3 false statements in their filing. Can anyone spot any other statements?
 
why dont you reply those comment on fcc. The "reply to comment" is due May 2 or something lik ethat...

03/01/05
Petition for Declaratory Ruling Filed by the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH) Concerning Video Relay Service (VRS) Interoperability. Pleading cycle established. (DA No. 05-509)
Comments Due: On or before April 15, 2005.
Reply Comments Due: On or before May 2, 2005.
 
Dennis said:
Unfortunately, the Sorenson filing wrong highlights certain points as "inaccuracies of the Petitioner" (i.e., saying that VP-100's CAN accept incoming VRS calls from other VRS providers -- while conveniently not mentioning that it's more difficult because it's not phone number based, it's IP address based -- that's NOT an industry standard for relay), they also give information that can be interpreted as false in their filing:

2) Pg 8: "... live technical support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year". Their live technical support is not available 24 hours a day, last I checked, and nothing on their website mentions this. Has that changed? I doubt it.

Those are the first 3 false statements in their filing. Can anyone spot any other statements?
Click to expand...

Sorry Dennis. Statement #2 is incorrect. Soresnon Tech support is 24 hours. Before, the hours were limited, 6 am to 10 pm, 5 days a week, something like that. I have tried that during the wee hours.
 
Nesmuth said:
Here's my one page reply filing with my fat signature on it. Sorenson's filing has a lot of distractive elements that tries to cast a fog over the real issue behind this petition.

When I post my case of intimidation, others shall follow. It worked well with the other WAI campaigns. It takes time and patience. Most folks prefer jurisprudence and that dont work well these days.

Richard
Click to expand...

I dont see any fogs around here nor on the Sorenson's filing. If you think these are not the real issues, speak up now. There you go again, what the heck is WAI? You wanted the AllDeaf readers to try to figure out what the heck you re talking about without a reference? That is your typical trend.

In the meantime, heel over to this message.

http://www.alldeaf.com/showpost.php?p=318709&postcount=1
 
qwerty123 said:
Sorry Dennis. Statement #2 is incorrect. Soresnon Tech support is 24 hours. Before, the hours were limited, 6 am to 10 pm, 5 days a week, something like that. I have tried that during the wee hours.
Click to expand...

Okay, so they're saying their "operating hours" are 24 hours, including technical support. I'm not willing to test that, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Every other relay site has 24 hour relay customer service, but not VRS technical support. Sure, you can leave a complaint, but if you want technical issues fixed, you're gonna wait until the morning. Are you sure your issue was tech support (i.e. firewall, network, video quality) and not customer service (interpreter quality, wait time, general questions)?
 
Dennis said:
Okay, so they're saying their "operating hours" are 24 hours, including technical support. I'm not willing to test that, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Every other relay site has 24 hour relay customer service, but not VRS technical support. Sure, you can leave a complaint, but if you want technical issues fixed, you're gonna wait until the morning. Are you sure your issue was tech support (i.e. firewall, network, video quality) and not customer service (interpreter quality, wait time, general questions)?
Click to expand...

Sorenson tech support is 24 hours, period. I do not need to wait until the next morning on Monday. I have tried handful times and it works.

I dont't know about the customer service being 24 hours, but there ought to be provision to answer any questions and hear comments from their customers on how to maxiumize the VP 100 and its services. This should be any method, such as VP, email, fax, snail mail and even tty. I reckon that not all vrs providers should do the same, regardless of hours.

You know there are two default entries in Sorenson VP100, "View Training Video" and "Tech Support". There should be one more entry, "Customer Service".

It is unfortunate that CCASDHH petioners misunderstood when any VRS providers can call to a deaf person with VP100 using IP address. A simple solution is to ask Sorenson before the FCC petition filing. Any non-Sorenson vrs providers can not call VP100 via phone numbers since the phone numbers are propertary information. Much education need to be done on the petitioners especially these Coalition folks, including Ken Krese of http://www.deaflaw.org/ and Sheri Farinihi Mutti of http://www.norcal.org/.

No point for me to lodge a complaint to anyone, just a waste of time. Let the vrs providers battle each other while I sit back, like ping-pong fan.
 
Right on!

I totatlly agree with Richard!
We know how to get things done.
Our agency is the "BEST" in Orange County!!
Margie
 
:roll: u both are like parrots neusmith and margie do us a favor show us facts before u start following anyoine ard... and your the director of commuincation?? u cant spell anything right! and ur agencys the best??? NOT
 
Back
Top