Comments on: The Sorenson Challenge – Follow Up http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/ Just another WordPress weblog Sat, 31 Jul 2010 00:48:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Tammy Richards http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-655 Tammy Richards Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:20:47 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-655 Dear Amy: I applaud you on your ability to dessiminate information to the Deaf community and generate a thoughtful and provoking discussion. There are SEVERAL points brought up in the posts following your initial post on FCC rates and supposition about Sorenson specifically that rate further examination. First, let me start with the disclaimer. I am currently a video interpreter with Sorenson Communications on the west coast. I have worked for them for about 18 months, and prior to that I worked for CSD VRS for over two years. I have a great deal of insight on video relay services from both the perspectives of an interpreter and that of a tax payer. That being said, here are my thoughts... 1. Traditionally, the FCC has been in the business of regulating rates and reimbursements (via NECA as you said) for all Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) of which VRS is one type. Every individual in the United States who has a phone pays a surcharge on his or her phone bill that is allocated to the funding of all TRSs (this includes CapTel, IP Relay, VRS, TTY Relay, et al). This means that both hearing and Deaf people who have traditional land-line phones "pay" for this service. Since the inception of TRS services, the service has always been funded this way. 2. It is CRITICAL that all people (Deaf and hearing) understand that providing video relay services (and all other types of relay services for that matter) is a BUSINESS. It is not a public service or non-profit endeavor, and someone will ultimately profit from it. As you stated, Amy, it would be fantastic if it could be Deaf people who ultimately earned the profits, but innovation is not limited by hearing status. Deaf people have the opportunity to come up with something that will be patentable and lucrative just as hearing people do. Deaf people can seek out venture capitalists just as hearing people do. 3. Just for the sake of information, Sorenson provides, at NO CHARGE (and will continue to do so as far as its employees have been informed) videophones that are worth on the order of $300 apiece. This means that for every video phone Sorenson installs in a customer's home, they pay out of their own pocket $300 to give it to the Deaf customer. As the older VP-100s start to give out, they are committed to replacing these older devices with the newer versions as quickly as they can. As someone pointed out, the FCC and NECA DOES NOT reimburse Sorenson or any other VRS/TRS company for ANYTHING other than minutes of calls made through its telecommunications services. This means that all the overhead that it costs to actually run the service and provide the videophones and relay services: e.g., interpreters, equipment, call centers, management, installers, research and development to improve VP technology, 24 hour technical support, etc. is not reimbursed. Only each minute of call time is reimbursed. 4. So why did Sorenson decide to sell controlling shares in its company to a venture capital organization? Well, in order to continue to innovate and to continue to provide these devices to Deaf customers, it needed investment capital ($$$) to do so. The FCC will not provide it. Continual improvement and continual expansion to control market share is what capitalist companies do, and how capitalism ultimately works. There is nothing stopping Sorenson's competitors from attempting to obtain venture capital support and developing competing technology or services. That is what makes America great - competition breeds excellence, and, ultimately, CHOICE on the part of the consumer. 5. So why does Sorenson care how much the FCC reimbursement rate is if they can operate on what they receive now or less? The answer to that is simple - the FCC changes the rate every year for all TRS providers. As businesses, ALL TRS/VRS companies (Sorenson, HOVRS, CSDVRS et al) COLLECTIVELY asked the FCC to consider offering a 3-year rate that would be effective for a minimum of 3 years, rather than changing the rate every year. This would allow ALL providers of services to be able to make much more cohesive business plans and not have to worry that in one year, they could be shut down due to a drastic rate cut. 6. So if that is the case, then why is the amount of the rate important?? It is interesting to note that as a service becomes more widespread, or if use becomes higher, more and more companies jump on the bandwagon in order to get their piece of the pie. What then happens, is more competition, but also a dilution of the service quality. As the best interpreters get snapped up by VRS companies, community interpreting suffers, and there are fewer and fewer skilled interpreters to provide services out in the community AND in the VRS centers as the industry grows. VRS providers are REQUIRED BY LAW to answer calls in a timely fashion (meaning no one waits for an interpreter more than 2 minutes) if the provider takes MORE THAN 2 minutes to answer your call, no matter how many minutes you talk, the VRS provider DOESN'T GET PAID. And yet they are still paying for the interpreter to provide the service and all the overhead to run VRS as a whole. The biggest fear is that the rates will go so low, VRS companies will be unable to provide compensation to its interpreters at a level that will keep their employees working there. This means the VRS companies (like school districts before them) will have to hire less and less skilled people in order to fill seats and meet the average speed of answer requirements set by the FCC in order to receive reimbursement. This phenomenon is known as "commoditization." Something becomes so commonplace that the good or service value is cheapened. It isn't good for Deaf people as a whole to have unskilled people working in VRS settings or the community. Eventually, (actually I believe this is already and has been a reality for some time) we will run out of interpreters. It takes so much time to train an interpreter and many years after that for an interpreter to develop skills sufficient and diverse enough to do VRS work. Much like when all the K-12 interpreters decided to freelance, now all the freelance interpreters are deciding to do VRS. As VRS centers grow and grow, they will be forced to take on less and less qualified or uncertified interpreters in order to meet their speed of answer requirements. How does this help the Deaf community? 7. As Phil so aptly pointed out above, Deaf people are one of the only groups of individuals I know of who have access to free long-distance (and international) calling through VRS. Who do you think eats that cost? Deaf and hearing people through that telephone bill surcharge, and the companies that provide the VRS/TRS service. NOTHING IS FREE. 8. As Phil and Amy both mentioned, just because a company is large and a MAJOR market share holder, does not mean that it has ANY obligation to make its financial holdings or costs versus revenues public - unless it is a publically traded company (e.g. You can buy stock in it.). So Sorenson, CSD, and HOVRS and all others that are private, for-profit companies, have no obligation to share with you their financial information. 9. Finally, and this is my own personal soapbox - without interpreters, VRS would not exist. The interpreting service is what VRS is about - NOT VIDEOPHONES. If Deaf consumers don't USE VRS (and I don't care which one you use - it could be ANY of them) then the FCC will believe that it is not of value to the Deaf Community and will discontinue reimbursing for it. If all a Deaf person wants is a videophone, they can go buy a D-Link. There needs to be a clear understanding and distinction between Deaf to Deaf communication (VP to VP) and VRS communication. Sorenson and other VRS providers do not exist to provide a means for Deaf people to communicate with other Deaf people - they provide a means for Deaf and hearing people to communicate. I think that point gets lost sometimes. 10. There is NO QUESTION that VRS and TRS are big business, and that the amount of money is huge. I would simply ask that people consider the benefits they are receiving from the service and how it makes their lives better before jumping to the conclusion that the division of market share should be "equal" or that Sorenson as a large company is simply trying to profit off of Deaf people rather than providing a service that makes life better. Don't forget that the interpreter who work for all of you are committed to making your lives better, and we want to ensure that your communication is as fluid as possible. I apologize in advance for this LONG post, but I feel like it is important everyone understand the realities of both the business side of VRS AND the customer service, Deaf community benefit side. Thank you for the opportunity to post - your discussion has been very important. I thank you, Amy for being as cool and dynamic as you were when you lived out my way in the Portland/Vancouver area. We miss you :-) Tammy (Fischer) Richards, BS, CI & CT; SC:L; NAD IV Certified Sign Language Interpreter Dear Amy:
I applaud you on your ability to dessiminate information to the Deaf community and generate a thoughtful and provoking discussion. There are SEVERAL points brought up in the posts following your initial post on FCC rates and supposition about Sorenson specifically that rate further examination.

First, let me start with the disclaimer. I am currently a video interpreter with Sorenson Communications on the west coast. I have worked for them for about 18 months, and prior to that I worked for CSD VRS for over two years. I have a great deal of insight on video relay services from both the perspectives of an interpreter and that of a tax payer. That being said, here are my thoughts…

1. Traditionally, the FCC has been in the business of regulating rates and reimbursements (via NECA as you said) for all Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) of which VRS is one type. Every individual in the United States who has a phone pays a surcharge on his or her phone bill that is allocated to the funding of all TRSs (this includes CapTel, IP Relay, VRS, TTY Relay, et al). This means that both hearing and Deaf people who have traditional land-line phones “pay” for this service. Since the inception of TRS services, the service has always been funded this way.

2. It is CRITICAL that all people (Deaf and hearing) understand that providing video relay services (and all other types of relay services for that matter) is a BUSINESS. It is not a public service or non-profit endeavor, and someone will ultimately profit from it. As you stated, Amy, it would be fantastic if it could be Deaf people who ultimately earned the profits, but innovation is not limited by hearing status. Deaf people have the opportunity to come up with something that will be patentable and lucrative just as hearing people do. Deaf people can seek out venture capitalists just as hearing people do.

3. Just for the sake of information, Sorenson provides, at NO CHARGE (and will continue to do so as far as its employees have been informed) videophones that are worth on the order of $300 apiece. This means that for every video phone Sorenson installs in a customer’s home, they pay out of their own pocket $300 to give it to the Deaf customer. As the older VP-100s start to give out, they are committed to replacing these older devices with the newer versions as quickly as they can. As someone pointed out, the FCC and NECA DOES NOT reimburse Sorenson or any other VRS/TRS company for ANYTHING other than minutes of calls made through its telecommunications services. This means that all the overhead that it costs to actually run the service and provide the videophones and relay services: e.g., interpreters, equipment, call centers, management, installers, research and development to improve VP technology, 24 hour technical support, etc. is not reimbursed. Only each minute of call time is reimbursed.

4. So why did Sorenson decide to sell controlling shares in its company to a venture capital organization? Well, in order to continue to innovate and to continue to provide these devices to Deaf customers, it needed investment capital ($$$) to do so. The FCC will not provide it. Continual improvement and continual expansion to control market share is what capitalist companies do, and how capitalism ultimately works.

There is nothing stopping Sorenson’s competitors from attempting to obtain venture capital support and developing competing technology or services. That is what makes America great – competition breeds excellence, and, ultimately, CHOICE on the part of the consumer.

5. So why does Sorenson care how much the FCC reimbursement rate is if they can operate on what they receive now or less?
The answer to that is simple – the FCC changes the rate every year for all TRS providers. As businesses, ALL TRS/VRS companies (Sorenson, HOVRS, CSDVRS et al) COLLECTIVELY asked the FCC to consider offering a 3-year rate that would be effective for a minimum of 3 years, rather than changing the rate every year. This would allow ALL providers of services to be able to make much more cohesive business plans and not have to worry that in one year, they could be shut down due to a drastic rate cut.

6. So if that is the case, then why is the amount of the rate important??
It is interesting to note that as a service becomes more widespread, or if use becomes higher, more and more companies jump on the bandwagon in order to get their piece of the pie. What then happens, is more competition, but also a dilution of the service quality. As the best interpreters get snapped up by VRS companies, community interpreting suffers, and there are fewer and fewer skilled interpreters to provide services out in the community AND in the VRS centers as the industry grows.

VRS providers are REQUIRED BY LAW to answer calls in a timely fashion (meaning no one waits for an interpreter more than 2 minutes) if the provider takes MORE THAN 2 minutes to answer your call, no matter how many minutes you talk, the VRS provider DOESN’T GET PAID. And yet they are still paying for the interpreter to provide the service and all the overhead to run VRS as a whole.

The biggest fear is that the rates will go so low, VRS companies will be unable to provide compensation to its interpreters at a level that will keep their employees working there. This means the VRS companies (like school districts before them) will have to hire less and less skilled people in order to fill seats and meet the average speed of answer requirements set by the FCC in order to receive reimbursement. This phenomenon is known as “commoditization.” Something becomes so commonplace that the good or service value is cheapened. It isn’t good for Deaf people as a whole to have unskilled people working in VRS settings or the community.

Eventually, (actually I believe this is already and has been a reality for some time) we will run out of interpreters. It takes so much time to train an interpreter and many years after that for an interpreter to develop skills sufficient and diverse enough to do VRS work. Much like when all the K-12 interpreters decided to freelance, now all the freelance interpreters are deciding to do VRS. As VRS centers grow and grow, they will be forced to take on less and less qualified or uncertified interpreters in order to meet their speed of answer requirements. How does this help the Deaf community?

7. As Phil so aptly pointed out above, Deaf people are one of the only groups of individuals I know of who have access to free long-distance (and international) calling through VRS. Who do you think eats that cost? Deaf and hearing people through that telephone bill surcharge, and the companies that provide the VRS/TRS service. NOTHING IS FREE.

8. As Phil and Amy both mentioned, just because a company is large and a MAJOR market share holder, does not mean that it has ANY obligation to make its financial holdings or costs versus revenues public – unless it is a publically traded company (e.g. You can buy stock in it.). So Sorenson, CSD, and HOVRS and all others that are private, for-profit companies, have no obligation to share with you their financial information.

9. Finally, and this is my own personal soapbox – without interpreters, VRS would not exist. The interpreting service is what VRS is about – NOT VIDEOPHONES. If Deaf consumers don’t USE VRS (and I don’t care which one you use – it could be ANY of them) then the FCC will believe that it is not of value to the Deaf Community and will discontinue reimbursing for it. If all a Deaf person wants is a videophone, they can go buy a D-Link. There needs to be a clear understanding and distinction between Deaf to Deaf communication (VP to VP) and VRS communication. Sorenson and other VRS providers do not exist to provide a means for Deaf people to communicate with other Deaf people – they provide a means for Deaf and hearing people to communicate. I think that point gets lost sometimes.

10. There is NO QUESTION that VRS and TRS are big business, and that the amount of money is huge. I would simply ask that people consider the benefits they are receiving from the service and how it makes their lives better before jumping to the conclusion that the division of market share should be “equal” or that Sorenson as a large company is simply trying to profit off of Deaf people rather than providing a service that makes life better. Don’t forget that the interpreter who work for all of you are committed to making your lives better, and we want to ensure that your communication is as fluid as possible.

I apologize in advance for this LONG post, but I feel like it is important everyone understand the realities of both the business side of VRS AND the customer service, Deaf community benefit side.

Thank you for the opportunity to post – your discussion has been very important. I thank you, Amy for being as cool and dynamic as you were when you lived out my way in the Portland/Vancouver area.

We miss you :-)

Tammy (Fischer) Richards, BS, CI & CT; SC:L; NAD IV
Certified Sign Language Interpreter

]]> By: Phil http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-654 Phil Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:20:54 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-654 After reading Amy's comments and all 39 other comments, are we forgetting something? We use VRS to make telephone calls for FREE! The general public chips in. Did we have that when we started with TRS? What fears me the most is, one day we will have to pay for the videophone equipment, just like we do for telephone. I can understand where some of us wants to know and request Sorenson to explain in details of the actual cost vs expenses. But are we opening a can of worms when we do that? Have you ever ask General Motors or IBM or Dell their reasons for charging their products? Where are we going with VRS? Are we trying to shut the system down with all of our questions? SNAP is coming on board (I am still waiting for my equipment). I think FCC has a good reason to question about the VRS rates. And, with all of our concerns, I see it a healthy reason to get in touch with FCC. FCC has no figures as to the number of users of VRS but they do have the number of minutes being used. And, it is growing. But, there are no figures of the number of us calling our friends that does not require VRS. We got free videophone equipment. We can call any of our friends for any length of time, anywhere in the country, for FREE! Do we want to stop doing this? Sorenson opened the door for many of us and I like to give my thanks to the company. In addition, I like to give my thanks to all the VRS vendors/companies we now have. I want to take this moment to say "thank you" for being in the business to allow us to be able to communicate in a more efficient way than we ever had. Of course, the increase use of blogs/vlogs to enable us to exchange opinions. But, we need to look at the whole picture carefully. What are the impacts? As for requesting Sorenson to tell us in more details, I say, get over it. Move on. You will not get answers. They have a right. Let's focus on FCC's reasons for reducing the VRS rates. Do you agree with FCC? However you feel about this, FCC needs to hear from you. Put our taxes at work. Thank you. Phil After reading Amy’s comments and all 39 other comments, are we forgetting something?

We use VRS to make telephone calls for FREE! The general public chips in. Did we have that when we started with TRS?

What fears me the most is, one day we will have to pay for the videophone equipment, just like we do for telephone.

I can understand where some of us wants to know and request Sorenson to explain in details of the actual cost vs expenses. But are we opening a can of worms when we do that? Have you ever ask General Motors or IBM or Dell their reasons for charging their products?

Where are we going with VRS? Are we trying to shut the system down with all of our questions? SNAP is coming on board (I am still waiting for my equipment).

I think FCC has a good reason to question about the VRS rates. And, with all of our concerns, I see it a healthy reason to get in touch with FCC. FCC has no figures as to the number of users of VRS but they do have the number of minutes being used. And, it is growing. But, there are no figures of the number of us calling our friends that does not require VRS. We got free videophone equipment. We can call any of our friends for any length of time, anywhere in the country, for FREE! Do we want to stop doing this?

Sorenson opened the door for many of us and I like to give my thanks to the company. In addition, I like to give my thanks to all the VRS vendors/companies we now have. I want to take this moment to say “thank you” for being in the business to allow us to be able to communicate in a more efficient way than we ever had.

Of course, the increase use of blogs/vlogs to enable us to exchange opinions. But, we need to look at the whole picture carefully. What are the impacts?

As for requesting Sorenson to tell us in more details, I say, get over it. Move on. You will not get answers. They have a right. Let’s focus on FCC’s reasons for reducing the VRS rates. Do you agree with FCC? However you feel about this, FCC needs to hear from you. Put our taxes at work.

Thank you.

Phil

]]> By: Jennifer http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Jennifer Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:31:20 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-653 Very interesting, Thank for the info. After reading all of those comments in here from other deafs, I find those comments VERY interesting concept. Amy, you had done a excellent job researching and provided us informations. However, one thing, do you actually have proof that this is really the accurate results and I wonder why Soreson still complains about the loss of cost they needed to reap to further prolong services for the deaf in the community. Keep up the good work and please continue provide us information that we all were not aware of and give us a idea how it works, God bless you! Very interesting, Thank for the info.

After reading all of those comments in here from other deafs, I find those comments VERY interesting concept.

Amy, you had done a excellent job researching and provided us informations. However, one thing, do you actually have proof that this is really the accurate results and I wonder why Soreson still complains about the loss of cost they needed to reap to further prolong services for the deaf in the community.

Keep up the good work and please continue provide us information that we all were not aware of and give us a idea how it works, God bless you!

]]> By: deafkathy http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-650 deafkathy Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:35:41 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-650 Thanks for sharing... Also, check this site for TRS funding for the year of 07-08. http://www.neca.org/media/052007FinalFilingwebsite.pdf Thanks for sharing… Also, check this site for TRS funding for the year of 07-08. http://www.neca.org/media/052007FinalFilingwebsite.pdf

]]> By: markymark http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-649 markymark Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:48:23 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-649 Amy, Betwee this post and your last, it is clear that many in the deaf community need to visit the FCC site and read the VRS regulations before they post again. One thing they would find there are the regulations on what is reimbursed by the NECA fund. Here's a list of everything that SorensonVRS provides its customers for FREE: Videophone Call lists Ring patterns(vp200) Conferencing (vp200) Zoom Lens selection (vp100) Firmware updates Installation Cables Router Support 911 service Point to point calls VRS calls Upgrades from VP100 to VP200 Many others Okay, now a list of all the things from the list above that the FCC reimburses out of the NECA fund ... ... ... That's right...NONE of the technology and features listed at the top can be re-imbursed by the FCC. Which means all of those things come out of the revenue that Sorenson dares to make. Sorenson makes the exact same amount per minute as every other VRS provider, but they choose to re-invest in the technology, and continue to provide that technology for no charge to the deaf community. Everyone, especially Sorenson, knows that they are the leader because of the Videophone technology, not because of the interpreter service. Cuts to the fund equals cuts to new technology. Without the technoloty, Sorenson would lose any edge they have over competitors. Perhaps that has something to do with their 'spam'. Or, perhaps they are the only VRS company doing any research on VRS growth, and the possible options facing the FCC in handling this growth. Basically, the FCC can lower the rate or increase the general fund. In one case, they anger the deaf community, in the other case, they anger every phone customer in america. Personally, after reading the selfish, misguided rants in many of the comments on your blog, I hope the FCC does lower the rate. Maybe when VRS becomes a pay service, the community would show a little humility, instead of taking things for granted. Amy,

Betwee this post and your last, it is clear that many in the deaf community need to visit the FCC site and read the VRS regulations before they post again. One thing they would find there are the regulations on what is reimbursed by the NECA fund.

Here’s a list of everything that SorensonVRS provides its customers for FREE:
Videophone
Call lists
Ring patterns(vp200)
Conferencing (vp200)
Zoom
Lens selection (vp100)
Firmware updates
Installation
Cables
Router
Support
911 service
Point to point calls
VRS calls
Upgrades from VP100 to VP200
Many others

Okay, now a list of all the things from the list above that the FCC reimburses out of the NECA fund
…
…
…

That’s right…NONE of the technology and features listed at the top can be re-imbursed by the FCC. Which means all of those things come out of the revenue that Sorenson dares to make. Sorenson makes the exact same amount per minute as every other VRS provider, but they choose to re-invest in the technology, and continue to provide that technology for no charge to the deaf community.

Everyone, especially Sorenson, knows that they are the leader because of the Videophone technology, not because of the interpreter service. Cuts to the fund equals cuts to new technology. Without the technoloty, Sorenson would lose any edge they have over competitors.

Perhaps that has something to do with their ’spam’. Or, perhaps they are the only VRS company doing any research on VRS growth, and the possible options facing the FCC in handling this growth. Basically, the FCC can lower the rate or increase the general fund. In one case, they anger the deaf community, in the other case, they anger every phone customer in america.

Personally, after reading the selfish, misguided rants in many of the comments on your blog, I hope the FCC does lower the rate. Maybe when VRS becomes a pay service, the community would show a little humility, instead of taking things for granted.

]]> By: Sam http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Sam Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:33:41 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-651 Ok. again, I have to ask.. if you like the new features added to the VP's? call waiting, 200. Interpreter Training to provide better communications for us. Sponsorship for Galludet and RID? I tried replying on your last sorenson challenge with a whole list of things sorenson has done for the deaf community, however, either you havent read it or are afraid to post my replies because it shuts your therories down. FYI I was wondering. when you work.. do you do it for FREE?? no you get paid.. it takes money to improve on technology, engineers, computer programmers, Interps, training programs, installers/trainers, You seem to forget that not only does sorenson provide us with Interpreters but they have provided many jobs for deaf in different areas of the nation. Also, heres an idea. Why doesnt the FCC put it to a Vote.. after all this is a democratic country we live in, Why not have the deaf community vote on which service they would like to keep.. That way the FCC is not having to pay millions of dollars to various differnt companies. So I, in turn, would like to Challenge YOU. Ms. Efron, why not get your readers to Vote as to which Companies they would like to see stay on as our VRS provider. Top 3 Stays the rest cut off.. What do you think? Ok. again, I have to ask.. if you like the new features added to the VP’s? call waiting, 200. Interpreter Training to provide better communications for us. Sponsorship for Galludet and RID? I tried replying on your last sorenson challenge with a whole list of things sorenson has done for the deaf community, however, either you havent read it or are afraid to post my replies because it shuts your therories down. FYI I was wondering. when you work.. do you do it for FREE?? no you get paid.. it takes money to improve on technology, engineers, computer programmers, Interps, training programs, installers/trainers, You seem to forget that not only does sorenson provide us with Interpreters but they have provided many jobs for deaf in different areas of the nation. Also, heres an idea. Why doesnt the FCC put it to a Vote.. after all this is a democratic country we live in, Why not have the deaf community vote on which service they would like to keep.. That way the FCC is not having to pay millions of dollars to various differnt companies. So I, in turn, would like to Challenge YOU. Ms. Efron, why not get your readers to Vote as to which Companies they would like to see stay on as our VRS provider. Top 3 Stays the rest cut off.. What do you think?

]]> By: Advocate/Educator http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-652 Advocate/Educator Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:05:39 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-652 I think Sorenson is the company everyone loves to hate. But let's give them credit....they improved the quality of our lives (and there are many of us). Forget the fact that they control a majority of the VRS market. Forget the fact that they are pocketing a lot of money from people who are chosing to use their (VRS) services. Let's just remember that they are the main reason many organizations and individuals are benefiting from their presence - organizations are getting sponsorship monies and individuals are getting jobs in the VRS industry (and this includes other VRS companies who are in the business to compete the giant - they are providing jobs and more sponsorship monies in effort to penetrate the VRS market). I believe Sorenson is also speaking on behalf of other VRS companies. Sorenson has a legal team and they appear to know what they are doing. Let's not make a fuss about Sorenson's financial statement. Let's not make a fuss about Sorenson's using their own VP100/200 which they distributed for FREE to call back customers to educate them about the potential impact of funding cuts. If you dont like it, dont use their service and return the VP100/200 so that other people can enjoy the benefits of using their videophone. You guys - dont you think your energy would be better spent on advocating for better education system for deaf/hard of hearing children? If the rate does get cut and VRS service is indeed impacted, all we can say "thanks a lot" to those who made noises and barked at the wrong tree. I think Sorenson is the company everyone loves to hate. But let’s give them credit….they improved the quality of our lives (and there are many of us).

Forget the fact that they control a majority of the VRS market. Forget the fact that they are pocketing a lot of money from people who are chosing to use their (VRS) services.

Let’s just remember that they are the main reason many organizations and individuals are benefiting from their presence – organizations are getting sponsorship monies and individuals are getting jobs in the VRS industry (and this includes other VRS companies who are in the business to compete the giant – they are providing jobs and more sponsorship monies in effort to penetrate the VRS market).

I believe Sorenson is also speaking on behalf of other VRS companies. Sorenson has a legal team and they appear to know what they are doing.

Let’s not make a fuss about Sorenson’s financial statement. Let’s not make a fuss about Sorenson’s using their own VP100/200 which they distributed for FREE to call back customers to educate them about the potential impact of funding cuts. If you dont like it, dont use their service and return the VP100/200 so that other people can enjoy the benefits of using their videophone.

You guys – dont you think your energy would be better spent on advocating for better education system for deaf/hard of hearing children?

If the rate does get cut and VRS service is indeed impacted, all we can say “thanks a lot” to those who made noises and barked at the wrong tree.

]]> By: Todd Morrison http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-648 Todd Morrison Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:39:10 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-648 I believe Sorenson is a company who oppress us. If we look at the big picture.. All cell phone users can call anybody regarless who the providers are. They also can purchase any model of those cell phones they desire to own. Now, as for the videophone world. We have no options. D-Link or Sorenson. D-Link is sold in retail stores and online. Sorenson does not, they control our equipment. My videophone was shattered when I moved to a new location. (Yes, I pack poorly) I threw it away, being that it's shattered. Now, I can't get a new videophone because I don't have the old one with me. Therefore, no videophone for me. That's not right. I should be able to purchase one and I would. To me this is a form of control and oppression. Secondly, I have huge problem with this phone number issues between sorenson and d-link. Both devices cannnot connect to each other using phone number. An IP address is required to connect between a d-link and a sorenson videophone. How messed up is that? I don't see other telephone users or other communication devices set up that complicated. This is silly. Sorenson is a fortune 500 company before starting the video relay services. I do not beleive the cuts in the rate will hurt them. I believe Sorenson is a company who oppress us. If we look at the big picture.. All cell phone users can call anybody regarless who the providers are. They also can purchase any model of those cell phones they desire to own. Now, as for the videophone world. We have no options. D-Link or Sorenson. D-Link is sold in retail stores and online. Sorenson does not, they control our equipment. My videophone was shattered when I moved to a new location. (Yes, I pack poorly) I threw it away, being that it’s shattered. Now, I can’t get a new videophone because I don’t have the old one with me. Therefore, no videophone for me. That’s not right. I should be able to purchase one and I would. To me this is a form of control and oppression.

Secondly, I have huge problem with this phone number issues between sorenson and d-link. Both devices cannnot connect to each other using phone number. An IP address is required to connect between a d-link and a sorenson videophone. How messed up is that? I don’t see other telephone users or other communication devices set up that complicated. This is silly. Sorenson is a fortune 500 company before starting the video relay services. I do not beleive the cuts in the rate will hurt them.

]]> By: Gee whiz http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-646 Gee whiz Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:22:42 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-646 Wow, I like this... people talking with great certitude about things they don't know JACKSHIT! Wow, I like this… people talking with great certitude about things they don’t know JACKSHIT!

]]> By: Extreme VRS User http://www.deafeyeseeit.com/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/comment-page-1/#comment-647 Extreme VRS User Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:43:52 +0000 http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2007/06/08/the-sorenson-challenge-follow-up/#comment-647 This is like digging dirt on Sorenson, when there isn't any. I think it is wrong to accuse any of the VRS providers of trying to run a business and make profit. It is a win/win situation. We get their videophones, Video Relay Services, and improved lifestyles and they continue to run their business and continue to provide us their next generation deaf technology as we continue to age and see the world evolve. It is as simple as that. Why doesn't Sorenson want FCC cuts? Probably because the cuts will hurt the minor VRS providers and probably diminish their funds, forcing them to all to shut down. What happens next? Sorenson becomes the last remaining VRS provider and a true monopoly, gaining 100% market share. Sorenson doesn't want a monopoly. Sorenson wants to maintain the competition, so that they can proceed to present new products and outdo the competition; the natural flow of healthy competition. It isn't Sorenson's fault that they have the coolest products and the "Microsoft of the Deaf World" feel. Think about it. Sprint probably has as much money or more and could come up with something to challenge the VP-200, but they won't. This is something the other VRS providers need to work harder at. What do the other VRS providers do? They leech off of the Sorenson videophones and use Sorenson videophones as a medium to channel their VRS funds through. Unsuspecting users blindly fall for this tactic and dismiss the morals and ethics that surround this dirty method. As some of you know, back when HOVRS was installing the i2eye, they had created a firmware in their routers that had firewall rules hard coded to intentionally block all other VRS provider's IP addresses. Yes, they got cited by the FCC for this later. I didn't realize this until my Sorenson installer came and installed my VP-100. She discovered that my old router blocked the IP address to Sorenson's VRS network, while investigating on the firewall rules within the router. She then asked me if the router was given to me by HOVRS, since I took off the sticker. She gave me a new Sorenson router (it's the gray router with the Sorenson label, if you've seen them). She showed me the firewall settings in it and the settings were clear and unbiased! My Sorenson installer is amazingly technically savvy, honest, and friendly. She asked me whether I wanted to keep the i2eye and the VP-100 at the same time. I told her yes, so I could see whether Sorenson was also into the dirty tricks game, but she politely agreed and explained that one VP had to be off and the other on in order for them to work, unless I had two IP addresses. Later I called Sorenson tech support on VP to ask for authorization for my installer to come back and help me after I majorly messed up the connections during a move to a new house and then when she arrived, I told her that I'd just like the VP-100 connected alone this time, without the i2eye anymore. She told me that disconnecting the i2eye was something that I would have to do by myself. I said "Why?". She said it was policy and ettiquette of business practices. I was very impressed and have been a loyal user ever since. I don't really think you understand that you're (Sorenson oppressors) setting yourself up for embarassment in the long run, after this debate has been extinguished. I still will not ask them for my VP-200. I will get it when it is my turn. My VP-100 is not falling apart or breaking down, which is a ludicrous claim. I still have many friends with a VP-100. They just had their VP-100's replaced if they broke down. No technology is fail-safe and perfect. You've all seen your computers break down one time or another and had to PAY for it at the local Best Buy or technician. This VP service was free!! I hope to set this perspective and example to many of my peers here. This is like digging dirt on Sorenson, when there isn’t any.

I think it is wrong to accuse any of the VRS providers of trying to run a business and make profit. It is a win/win situation. We get their videophones, Video Relay Services, and improved lifestyles and they continue to run their business and continue to provide us their next generation deaf technology as we continue to age and see the world evolve. It is as simple as that.

Why doesn’t Sorenson want FCC cuts? Probably because the cuts will hurt the minor VRS providers and probably diminish their funds, forcing them to all to shut down. What happens next? Sorenson becomes the last remaining VRS provider and a true monopoly, gaining 100% market share. Sorenson doesn’t want a monopoly. Sorenson wants to maintain the competition, so that they can proceed to present new products and outdo the competition; the natural flow of healthy competition.

It isn’t Sorenson’s fault that they have the coolest products and the “Microsoft of the Deaf World” feel. Think about it. Sprint probably has as much money or more and could come up with something to challenge the VP-200, but they won’t. This is something the other VRS providers need to work harder at.

What do the other VRS providers do? They leech off of the Sorenson videophones and use Sorenson videophones as a medium to channel their VRS funds through. Unsuspecting users blindly fall for this tactic and dismiss the morals and ethics that surround this dirty method.

As some of you know, back when HOVRS was installing the i2eye, they had created a firmware in their routers that had firewall rules hard coded to intentionally block all other VRS provider’s IP addresses. Yes, they got cited by the FCC for this later.

I didn’t realize this until my Sorenson installer came and installed my VP-100. She discovered that my old router blocked the IP address to Sorenson’s VRS network, while investigating on the firewall rules within the router. She then asked me if the router was given to me by HOVRS, since I took off the sticker. She gave me a new Sorenson router (it’s the gray router with the Sorenson label, if you’ve seen them). She showed me the firewall settings in it and the settings were clear and unbiased!

My Sorenson installer is amazingly technically savvy, honest, and friendly. She asked me whether I wanted to keep the i2eye and the VP-100 at the same time. I told her yes, so I could see whether Sorenson was also into the dirty tricks game, but she politely agreed and explained that one VP had to be off and the other on in order for them to work, unless I had two IP addresses. Later I called Sorenson tech support on VP to ask for authorization for my installer to come back and help me after I majorly messed up the connections during a move to a new house and then when she arrived, I told her that I’d just like the VP-100 connected alone this time, without the i2eye anymore. She told me that disconnecting the i2eye was something that I would have to do by myself. I said “Why?”. She said it was policy and ettiquette of business practices. I was very impressed and have been a loyal user ever since.

I don’t really think you understand that you’re (Sorenson oppressors) setting yourself up for embarassment in the long run, after this debate has been extinguished.

I still will not ask them for my VP-200. I will get it when it is my turn. My VP-100 is not falling apart or breaking down, which is a ludicrous claim. I still have many friends with a VP-100. They just had their VP-100’s replaced if they broke down. No technology is fail-safe and perfect. You’ve all seen your computers break down one time or another and had to PAY for it at the local Best Buy or technician. This VP service was free!!

I hope to set this perspective and example to many of my peers here.

]]>