Main | Air Travel Action Alert »
Make Videophones Equal to Telephones
By advocacy | July 25, 2006
Introduction
In this video Kelby Brick, an attorney with the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) Law and Advocacy Center explains how the NAD and other consumer groups have just filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the agency to implement changes that will make videophone users more equal to telephone users.
[gv data=”http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8381641640258640122″ width=”320″ height=”255″][/gv]
Explanation
In this video Brick explains why this issue is important and how the proposed changes will make it easier for hearing people to call deaf people and for deaf people to call other deaf people with 10-digit phone numbers.
[gv data=”http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8321648886183619604″ width=”320″ height=”255″][/gv]
Action
In this video Brick explains how to take action on this issue using the FCC Electronic Filing Form.
[gv data=”http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5575141035284937611″ width=”320″ height=”255″][/gv]
Hello! I’m Kelby Brick, and I am an attorney with the National Association of the Deaf (NAD).
The NAD and other consumer groups have just filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about changes we want to see that will help to make videophone users more equal to telephone users.
Those changes are:
Our own telephone numbers
We want all videophone users get easy-to-remember 10-digit telephone numbers just like hearing telephone users. We want the same 10-digit numbers that hearing people have, with area codes that match where we live. We want videophone users to use the same telephone number protocol as voice telephone users.
A central telephone number database
We want to see a central telephone number database. That database will include the telephone numbers of both voice telephone users and videophone users.
A neutral third party to administer the database
We want a central database administered by a neutral third party. The center that administers the database will not be connected to VRS providers, or to telephone companies. It will focus on allocation of phone numbers to phone companies and VRS providers. Telephone companies and VRS providers will retrieve phone numbers from this same center. Both kinds of phone numbers will be treated equally.
We want it now.
When do we want this? We want it now.
Our own telephone numbers
Why is this important? All along, we have had to give hearing people a relay phone number. Then, when they get connected to VRS, they have to give our “proxy†phone number or IP address, etc. All of the information needed makes it a very complicated way to make a call.
We want to be treated equally with voice telephone users, and be able to give hearing and deaf people our own 10-digit telephone numbers. When we receive a voice call, our vp number will be recognized by the VRS provider and immediately connected to our videophones.
This will also solve the problems we experience when we’re filling out hospital or other forms. There’s a space to put a 10-digit phone number, but not enough room to add information about VRS numbers. I don’t want to be stuck like that. I want to have my own 10-digit number just like everyone else.
I can give my 10-digit phone number to hearing people. I can give that phone number to my deaf friends for videophone calls also. Just one number for all calls, the same as voice phone users. That’s what we want.
We must all act together now. How? It’s easy!
Go to your computer and type:
http://www.nad.org/fccrelaylink
You’ll see an FCC form on your computer screen. Just type a few brief comments to let them know what we want to see happen:
- 1) Our own telephone numbers for use with our videophones, just like hearing people have for telephones.
- 2) A central telephone number database.
- 3) A neutral third party to administer the central database.
Again, the link is:
http://www.nad.org/fccrelaylink
If you’d like more background information on this issue, go to http://www.nad.org/FCCnumberAction
Thank you for taking action! I am Kelby Brick from the NAD.
Topics: Action |
August 8th, 2006 at 11:51 am
I am a Deaf citizen I had been fighting to urge all VP providers to have phone number with area code so it would be alot easier. I had urged the FCC a long time ago. It doesnt make any sense having IP and phone no. not working together. I think every VP providers must sit down and work this solution out. If hearing have different cellphone and it work together, then why cannot the VP. We urge all companies to stop this silly game not working together to solve this problem.
I urge FCC not to reduce the cost of providing qualified interpreter and device and long distance. We had come a long way to get this far to be able to communicate with other Deaf and make long distance calls to hearing people.
George A. Adams III
wahoo4438@yahoo.com
a deaf advocate of SC
August 19th, 2006 at 12:56 am
I learned somthing from VP-100 and VP i2 eye Dlink since 3 years I found Sorenson Tech Support from basic to Top of the tech Support.I study about VRS have certified qualified required of course at all.I like both equiments…I found Sorenson blocked all VRS in VP-100 systems when FCC decided to be fair July 1st,2006.Then We made happy VP-100,so well few week.Sorenson displayed Waring me to use other VRS Service,Yes or no,etc that I dont like it one and thenn few week, I dont like to see Sorenson started to set up Blurr static alike fire screen low quality of my self picture during others VRS,then I compared Sorenson VRS and self my screen is best than others VRS that I catch up on it.. I though it was the problem of my VP-100 that 4 times broke due of something hits program from sorenson property can be blocked static,blurr and also sound off somthing in my screen had troble since their problems, the sorensonvrs try to do block others VRS to make me VRS doesnot understand me my spell,numbers calls that ways problem.
I need it what ? I support any VRS incluided sorensonVRS,sorenson is a big head and want to be Monopoly one alike Bill Gate, he already failed one taht will be the same of Sorenson VRS,Inc.
Hope in the future all VRS to take care our deaf community need to call in less 15 seconds all VRS do it the same and be patience with VRS is step to step and will be runing better service for the deaf.
Please, if your own equiments always do your right to choose for qualify with Both screen be 99% 6.0 mb or more Network… I believe the stronger All VRS are really very comptetions,Our deaf people community always feel to share all times with all VRS at points.
Take care and keep an eyes with your futuristic Technolgy Videphone.
Smile
September 5th, 2006 at 5:51 am
I just moved to the city of santa clara. I am surprised that they do not have a tty telephone number for emergency services. I had to dial 911 and the operators could not understand my tty device. normally a dedicated number is made available for 911 related problems for tty devices to call. In the past I have taped this number to my phone handset so that i can dial it and place the handset in the coupler to talk to emergency services, who have a typewriter and printer on their end. Why doesn’t the heart of silicon valley have a tty for emergencies? The operator for converting tty to speach could not dial 911 for a particular city because she was located many miles from here and her 911 was not my 911. It needs to be local. tranhplab@gmail.com
December 27th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Last week I confirmed that when I used our local Comcast telephone with Sorenson VRS call. Remember that almost all of Comcast deaf/HH customers were not happy including my struggle in two months with Comcast in 2005. That’s why I found out.
When I talked with Comcast agent where were in out of state - not local area, I demanded the guy,
“Where are you now?” The agent was in Louisiana. Then he gave me local comcast tech group in our home area in order to call them
to fix the National Geographic Channel without its caption during emergency call. It was not done as I gave up waiting for while.
The problem was that Comcast customer service traces the call to VRS site only that fool them but not at my home call.
We need to ask FCC that the VRS systems should pass the tracing to my home phone in order to reduce very waste time and misunderstand with
Comcast. Maybe Comcast should have other non-tracing VRS phone number but VRS sites needs to modify system to allow passing tracing to our home phones better.
PS. Comcast agent said, “trace to 866-327–”
confirmed my suspect last week.
January 14th, 2007 at 7:39 am
What Kelby Brick said about the “3 demands” from NAD is almost a joke. The “one number” concept is something that is feasible if it is a service provided by individual VRS providers. Demands by anyone can be made but they cannot be met due to lack of understanding about what goes on in a company and democracy is required to create competitiveness between VRS providers. When I say democracy is required, I mean the companies need to be allowed to create and market their own proprietary inventions. Then they need to be allowed to grow based on the quality of services they provide, not be restricted because they are a VRS company and they are obligated to share their proprietary inventions with ANOTHER company due to the convenience of the deaf customer. There is a similar parable that is parallel to the VRS market, which is education. If the government allowed educational vouchers to be given to everyone in the nation, the best schools will win and prosper because they have the best business plan and best resources to cater to the general public. That will force other schools to shape up and come up with a better business plan and start investing in themselves to better cater to the general public. The reason why our educational system stinks is because there is no competition and residents are stuck with schools nearby, which is taking away their right to put their kids in the best schools to get the best education. Anyway, with VRS, the same concept applies. May the best competitor(s) win. If a third party handled all the phone numbers for all the VRS providers, then that takes away the competitive edge and the potential to provide better products for the deaf. Competition is required to set the bar higher for other competitors to come out with something better for everyone. I am a deaf person with a deaf family of 4 and Kelby Brick, nor does NAD, speak for us because they make demands that are not logical. If the one number was provided by a third-party company, then how is it determined which VRS provider is used when someone makes a VRS call to the “one number”? I am sure there are a lot of ideas but not everyone is technologically advanced “up there” and not everyone has resources available to them while sitting behind a oak desk and sitting in Washington, D.C.
I have met Kelby Brick the ambulance chaser and he’s not the best listener or people person you would imagine him to be. I am not impressed with him and his actions and I suggest anyone think twice before watching these videos. Sure, all of his requests would be great to implement. However, they are not logical and should not be implemented because it is considered “shooting ourselves in the foot” and VRS providers will end up being restricted then we may end up going back to square one.
And after reading some of the comments above, the recurring complaint is the picture quality of various videophones with various VRS companies. People need to understand that picture quality IS affected by MANY factors. Network speeds, type of network, location, time of day, type of enviroment, and the type of equipment used by the customer and type of equipment used by VRS providers. Nothing is “intentional” on ANYONE’s part, it is called competition. (Lousy picture with one VRS company and a better picture with another VRS company, which is NOT fair.) Customers need to watch their speeds and watch who is on their network. Customers need to understand the different types of networks and how speeds can be affected. Customers need to understand that VRS providers use different end points for video. Not one VRS company is created equal. I use Sorenson VRS as my primary VRS provider and HOVRS as my secondary provider through iChat. I would say that approximately 50% of my calls to HOVRS are blurry because HOVRS call centers are incapable of handling a certain network speed. So I go to my Sorenson videophone and it works perfectly because of their codec capabilities to handle low network speeds on BOTH end points, which was THEIR invention.
I can go on all day and night on this. I am 100% positive that each person who complaints about “unfairness” between VRS providers and claim loyalty to any other VRS provider other than SorensonVRS HAS A SORENSON VIDEOPHONE at home or work. Hmm… I wonder why…. maybe it is because SorensonVRS provides a better product and something that works everytime?
Think about it….
J.R.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I wonder , were to find boyfriend to my sister? Joke:)
My online friends propose this link to use -TOP10 - As for me, I think life is now!!!
June 1st, 2007 at 4:18 am
I would like to know how they(company relay) can place in their system to use our number phone to a system so hearing people can find out automatic our numbers in their system such in call center hospital or office work something like that. I guess is not possible but with advent of technology nowadays maybe should work fine. if anyone answer my question would be great. thank you.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
First of all, I wanted to say “Thank You” to FCC, SorensonVrs, HOVRS, and other companies of those who helped us to get videophone devices in order to communicate with other deaf friends and loved ones. I had VP-100 device last year, I wish we had it a long time ago back in ’70s, but technology started in 80’s and getting better every time.
Now I thank Sorenson to replace VP-100 for VP-200 device. I am looking forward new VP-200 soon to replace my old VP-100 device soon. Thank you, Sorenson.
Any way, I would recommend FCC and companies to increase high frequency over the line or cable to increase the highest quality resolutions on videophone without any blurry images between two callers.
I also recommend FCC and companies to create telephone number instead of ipaddress. Because it does create a lot of problems.
I also reccomend those company who developes the videophone device to increase the highest quality resolutions on frame per seconds over the line or the cable. I believe that a company can develope a better quality videophone device with FCC approvals.
Concerning about the Patriot Act law, we have the right to protect our privacy regardless of any services who monitor Deaf Americans while they communicate through their videophone devices at home. It should block any third parties or services to monitor two callers while they talk on the videophone. It is the same thing with a hearing person who talk on the telephone or cell phone without any interferences. Should we, the deaf people, do the same?
Finally, I thank FCC personals for their great service, I am sure they will do their best abilities to help the deaf people what they need, and just give them a time to reconsider our ultimate case. I hope they will listen to us.
Silent warrior
December 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
There isn’t any reason this couldn’t be done, although it would be costly to the public at large. A local number would need to be acquired in each community; that number would forward to the VRS service selected by the consumer - the VRS using the forwarded number as the “ID” for the caller. There are technical issues but (definitely) not insurmountable. It would certainly make things much easier for people calling in.
It sounds like the primary reason for the current system is to lock people into one provider, rather then providing portability. There’s no reason this couldn’t be done, it’s a political and corporate issue. Providing a direct telephone number would make it much easier for the deaf to communicate with the hearing.
Silent Warrior - everyone is concerned with the Patriot Act and surrounding laws. I don’t suspect (from a technical perspective) that privacy would be any less for the deaf then the hearing. At the moment, VP-to-VP communications may be slightly more secure simply because of obscurity: there aren’t mass-collection systems out there for the various types of videoconferencing in use, and the data retention issues are much higher. Unfortunately, it’s a sad state of affairs for everyone in the country (hearing or deaf) when it comes to privacy.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I support this,too! Access should be the same for all.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I fully support this idea and should be access to everyone else the same as for all of us!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Sorenson VRS removed phone number directory for EnVision SL software on PC computer but only use IP Address. Thats not good idea and we want to keep contiune using the phone nbr to make easier to remember phone nbr than IP Address (ip address dont stay same all the time). Also why not to make our own name IP Address or phone number for videophone ?
January 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Hello, My name is Bradley Glaves. The technology talked about here to enhance signing communication already exists. I have an affiliation with a Digital Media Service Provider that supports: Video Email; Video Conferencing with up to 5 people; Video IM; Video Broadcast; IP phone service with video; Private Social Media Network and soon to be released a TV Set Top Micro Computer that will allow you to video chat, IM and conference from your couch without a separate PC. You can do all of this for as little as $10 per month! We are also looking for Reps to help expose this technology and our applications. If anyone has any interest contact me through my website at: http://www.planbpartners.com