Save My VRS

CrazyPaul

Active Member
It has been determined that FCC proposed those changes after ZVRS suggested them to FCC. It sounds like ZVRS is getting tired of competing against Sorenson and others. No wonder.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
You left A LOT expenses that VRS have to absorb to operate the business.

Don't forget the office space rental, they aren't cheap.

There are many that works behind the curtain, like Human resources, IT staff that keeps the system operation, and the equipment cost involved, and much more that you don't even realize and they are not cheap. They are costing in tune of millionS of dollars, and much more, don't forget Obamacare which would ultimate force VRS provider to provide health insurance, and so much more. So your calculation is still way way way off.



FCC will not get rid of VRS. They will continue to pay for relay services so we can call someone who isn't deaf, but we should be paying our way with personal calls to other videophone users just like hearing people. Hearing people pay for a voice plan so they can call their friends and relatives. Why should we get so many freebies? If you are calling someone from the east coast to the west coast, there should be a long distance charge (or even a flat rate charge). There are programs that do give free time like Skype. Some of us have a wireless device, right? And we pay for the data plans, right? So why not pay for video calls?

As for the compensation rate, remember that FCC used to pay $14 a minute, and it's down to about $5 a minute. Sorenson didn't suffer from that cut. In fact, they continued to do even better on that lower rate.

Let's do some math:

one hour of call time among various terps = $300 an hour

If a VRS center has 20 terps working in a given hour = $6K an hour

If this same VRS center operates 8 hours a day for 7 days a week for the whole year = $17.5 million a year

If a terp is paid $20 to $50 an hour, where's the other $250 going?

If a private VRS business gets all its revenues from the government, is it still a privately owned business? Should a business be allowed to create luxurious benefits and salaries based on federal dollars? No non-profit org that receives federal dollars has ever been this lucky; they must explain and justify for every penny used, and the employees are paid crap with little in benefits.

Is it really doomsday when there's only one VRS provider making so much noise about FCC?
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
As I said my own personal preference and concerns. I have always wanted hardware based VRS system like VP-200 or NtouchVP since they got the ringer port for flashing lights. I don't want this to be scrapped by FCC.

But, from almost 6 years experience and talked with thousands of Deafies. This caused my deep concerns not just for ourselves. I get calls, most of them were lucky to get help from Deaf Technical support like myself. I understood their language and can easily help. Majority of them are NOT technical savvy and not good at explaining the problems that they are having. Because we have expertise and knew the needs of Deaf customers. If FCC adopted, which may cause discontinue of dedicated hardware based VRS equipment, forcing Deafies get from stores or online orders whom they know NOTHING about VRS and will have trouble assisting Deafies. This is kinda of scary scenario for them if FCC adopt the proposal.
 

RedWolf

Active Member
All I can say is Thank you ZVRS for causing this mess.
Why you blame on ZVRS for causing this mess? It was SorensonVRS who caused fear factors to the deaf communities.

If you meant the mess that FCC was causing the stir in this problem, you can put a blame on John Yeh, former owner of Viable, who was not being honest with the deaf communities by defrauding them.

Since FCC was cracking down Viable, they cracked down over 50 VRS. Since they finished cracking down frauds, we have currently down to 5 VRS. Now, this is such a mess that other VRS industries been doing lately.

Now, we have Convo, Sorenson, ZVRS, Purple, GraciaVRS, and CAAG. If you want sources, here it is: Ed’s Telecom Alert » How Many VRS Providers Left By Now?

I don't see why you blaming ZVRS about "the mess". ZVRS did nothing wrong with this mess. It was Viable that got them into this mess. Where you get information that ZVRS gotten all the mess from?
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Why you blame on ZVRS for causing this mess? It was SorensonVRS who caused fear factors to the deaf communities.

If you meant the mess that FCC was causing the stir in this problem, you can put a blame on John Yeh, former owner of Viable, who was not being honest with the deaf communities by defrauding them.

Since FCC was cracking down Viable, they cracked down over 50 VRS. Since they finished cracking down frauds, we have currently down to 5 VRS. Now, this is such a mess that other VRS industries been doing lately.

Now, we have Convo, Sorenson, ZVRS, Purple, GraciaVRS, and CAAG. If you want sources, here it is: Ed’s Telecom Alert » How Many VRS Providers Left By Now?

I don't see why you blaming ZVRS about "the mess". ZVRS did nothing wrong with this mess. It was Viable that got them into this mess. Where you get information that ZVRS gotten all the mess from?
Okay, watch this video carefully. At 3:10 min, Greg from FCC said that CSDVRS (which is ZVRS) made a suggestion regarding a single app/software which means that our VP200/n-VP would not be functional anymore so FCC's proposed changes include it in the public notice. What's more, Sorenson Vice Pres. Ron mentioned it, too. WE WANT TO KEEP VP200/n-VP RUNNING!

Don't be blind! Pay attention to all videos about opposing the changes in this thread. They are college-educated. They (including NAD's lawyer) read and understand the public notice so that's why they ask us to send our feedbacks to FCC to let it know that those changes are BAD for us.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Yes, too bad that his grammar is so English and what he said in English is correct, this is to satisfy hearing people and they can understand clearly. He reflected exact what I was concerned about. If he had used straight ASL, it would be much clearer to Deafies.

He was right, I was one of these people that work hard to collect and feed the information to improve VRS service and equipment. There are database with all the information where we can see Deaf customers needs and designed accordingly. If we drop this, we may have to go though general public for our equipment. They may collect some information from Deaf but it will be like a drop in a bucket and they won't care to improve these parts of Deaf needs. They will said, the number is way too small, don't waste money on training, tech tech support for .05% of Deaf customers.

I am not sure how many of you have been frustrated with your local ISP when you had issue with your own VP, I am not sure how many of you got frustrate with telecommunication technical support trying to get help that you wanted. Its all because majority of these hearing people never met a deaf and had no friggin clue. Do we really want to deal with that?

I understand the need of change but in the light of stupid John Yeh, certification is now required to run VRS business and we now have only 5 VRS providers, do you think one of these VRS providers have the balls to lose certificate? Isn't it enough for FCC? When company has a certificate of high value, they can not afford to mess with and try to cheat the system. I do not believe any Certified VRS provider want to cheat at all.

I am 100% neutral with all of VRS providers, Not a single VRS provider really fits everybody. Not everybody would agree with just one VRS, that is what makes America great country, freedom of enterprise and competition. Whats scary is the idea of FCC wants is to have something that "one fits for all" which is not going to work.


 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Wow your right, FCC should have remain neutral. Greg didn't fully say the name of VRS but was hesitated in the middle of "CSD and VRS", interesting. I don't think Greg is revealing enough what is really going on.

Exactly how I see it too. It's ZVRS who is whining.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Wow your right, FCC should have remain neutral. Greg didn't fully say the name of VRS but was hesitated in the middle of "CSD and VRS", interesting. I don't think Greg is revealing enough what is really going on.
It is mentioned very clearly in the captions.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
I'm functionally equilvent as Hearing person, Hearing people don't generally watch captions, right? And Greg speaks my language, do I need to read caption? ;-)
I thought that you were not sure what he said about CSDVRS.

Greg didn't fully say the name of VRS
Well, he did mention the full name of it. The caption showed that he said it.

That's all!
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
If you go to Offical Site of the Deaf Newspaper, LLC and watch today's edition and there is CAAGVRS there elaborate what FCC proposal and what they think. They are thinking exact same what I was thinking too.

I opposed two out of three. I can understand why database needs to be standardized and I won't have issue with that which I would leave that out. Leaving two proposals, rate cut is a no no! CAAGVRS already said the operational cost is NOT cheap, and is in tune of millions of dollars. I once help a VRS company set up a new center I was carrying several boxes and equipment that was shipped. One box, I can't explain exact what it is but it is a electronic device that has to do with Internet connections, brand new cost $105,000 for just one box alone! I almost dropped it but I dropped my jaw. I then said, this could have paid off my mortgage easily. After that, I knew it is NOT cheap to run a VRS business, because that box, is just one of of hundred, or maybe thousands of them around VRS industry. So rate cut is out of question otherwise the quality of VRS service WILL suffer.

Finally, the third one which I opposed, is standardize software. It is NOT going to help, and not going to benefit us the VRS customers. Here is the problem that I just learn that FCC were just too focus on audio part of VRS equipment, based on FCC regulation back in 1930 requires all phone to have equilvent sound quality as part of standardize, FCC is trying to apply that on VRS! They don't recongizes about video quality because it was never standardized. What we need is a standardized video. No VRS can can fix that themselves, the solution is really on International level. There is International committee for the Internet port connection, they have registered several ports reserved for specific application, unfortunately none of them were reserved for VRS video stream. That part needs to be add on the register list in order to reserve say about 100 ports dedicated for Video though VRS and increase security on it. It is much easier to use dedicated ports and it is two way winner, one is VRS customers that don't have to worry about interoperability. Port is what makes VP Interoperability works, secondly it is easier for FCC to track the minutes to prevent any fraud. If you don't know what port is, the port 80 is what you are using to read this is page, and if you go to your own online banking, your using port 80 PLUS port 443, the port 443 is a secure port which authenticate the connection and verified no one is hacking it. Anyway, back to VP, once the International committe assigns and reserve ports, it WILL solve alot of problems and headache and allow VRS company to produce their own equipment and designs.
Its IANA organization, see links where it shows registered ports so you get the idea.

If you scroll down to port 80 and 443, it will show you what I'm talking about.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xml

Once VRS has registered in that registry, it will solve the platform issues.
 

Frisky Feline

Well-Known Member
you all need to take it easy and stop being whiner over VRS.. you all are right that i dont read this thread if i misread you all but the way i see. whining posts. :ugh3:
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
It is not about whining, it is about these hearing people don't damn understand that the sense that we have lost and can not be replaced or substitute with something else that is "Audio". They kept trying to make you able to hear and speak without them having to adapt you. In other word, it sounded like the crystal clear sounds is a mandatory where video is not even requirement for them.

If we stand up and make ourselves clear, we need is VISUAL not Audio.

you all need to take it easy and stop being whiner over VRS.. you all are right that i dont read this thread if i misread you all but the way i see. whining posts. :ugh3:
 
Top