Reaching the Boiling Point
An Op-Ed Editorial from Dr. Z

Dear Consumers,

After sharing my thoughts over the last few weeks–I have been met with silence by “you know whom”…I am now presenting this editorial in the form of a letter to you all–it presents a summary of what has evolved by the attitude of “you know whom” over the past few months/years with no sensitivity towards us deaf and hard of hearing people and continuing to think we are second-class citizens.

This letter is to detail some urgent issues concerning 10-digit numbering and the practices of the largest VRS provider, Sorenson Communications. After careful investigation, review, and technological inspection, it has been determined that Sorenson is intentionally misleading deaf and hard of hearing people in regard to 10-digit numbering ostensibly to further their own business interests. In doing so, Sorenson has implemented an internal operating procedure that confuses the marketplace and impedes the effectiveness of the FCC Order on numbering. Specifically, the following has occurred:

1. Sorenson has used the position of default provider to tell customers that they must use Sorenson exclusively as their VRS provider. This simply is NOT TRUE and is in contradiction to FCC Orders.

2. Sorenson has communicated to consumers that if they do not use Sorenson, they will lose features on their Video Phone. This too is a misleading and bullying tactic and also is in contradiction to FCC Orders.

3. Sorenson is providing 10-digit numbers to deaf consumers and not immediately placing the numbers in the national numbering database. This results in the failure of point to point calls from a non-Sorenson user. Sorenson responds to this issue by stating that the point to point call fails because of the other VRS provider’s video phone. This is NOT TRUE. The point to point calls would be fully functional if Sorenson would provision the national database with each 10-digit number that they provide.

4. Sorenson is not eliminating the proxy/faux number resulting in consumers continuing to use the proxy number versus the new real 10 digit number. The FCC Numbering Orders require the elimination of proxy numbers but Sorenson still affirmatively uses them thereby causing confusion for the consumers.

5. Sorenson is not provisioning the national numbering database with the 800 numbers it provides to deaf consumers. Sorenson is further advising deaf consumers that 800 numbers are better numbers to use for point to point calls as the consumers will not have to pay long distance charge. This is NOT TRUE. There are no long distance charges for point to point calls. However, by not putting the 800 in the national database, Sorenson can start a new closed network for the deaf that utilizes solely the Sorenson system. Much like the 10-digit numbers, if an 800 number is not provisioned in the national database and if a deaf person calls a Sorenson video phone from another brand of video phone, the call will fail. However, the call originates from another Sorenson video phone (i.e. it is a Sorenson to Sorenson call), the call will function as Sorenson has placed the 800 number in the local LDAP, but not into the national database.

6. Sorenson is not permitting functional caller ID when there is a standard for presenting caller ID to phones. When a video phone from another provider calls Sorenson they present the caller ID to the Sorenson phone. The caller ID (phone number) should show up in the call history as a missed call with the accurate number. However, Sorenson does not place the caller number in the correct location in the caller ID data stream. Instead, Sorenson displays an IP address where the caller ID would normally appear. This usually results in the deaf consumer trying to return the call to the IP address, and the call going to the wrong place, or not functioning at all. However, when the call is between two Sorenson video phones, when the call comes in from a Sorenson device, the proper identifier appears in the missed call log, and the deaf consumer can return the call from the missed call log. This “hiding” of caller ID for non-Sorenson consumers is an attempt to manipulate consumer choice in the VRS market (in favor of Sorenson), and is at odds with FCC interoperability requirements.

Sorenson’s actions are unacceptable to the industry, at odds with FCC rules, and above all else, they are abusive to the deaf consumer.

What can a consumer do to help?

1. Take this email and forward it to the FCC at fccinfo@fcc.gov and say, “I am tired of being misled and manipulated by Sorenson!”

2. Stop using Sorenson. Exercise your right to use dial around and/or use the default provider of your choice. Pick any other provider and put their URL in your phone. If Sorenson comes knocking and asks why you are not using their phone, then point out the 6 items above.

Choose another provider who you like or try several but don’t use Sorenson until they stop making it harder for the deaf to communicate and start making it easier.

There are 3 ways to access CSDVRS/ZVRS.

1. CSDVRS.TV

2. ZVRS.TV

3. Dial 888-888-1116

Thank you for the opportunity to read my thoughts. Feel free to comment (or complain to the FCC).

Sincerely,

Dr. Z

Clearing the Air
An Op-Ed Editorial from Dr. Z

A recent request for clarification from Purple deserves comment:

First, I do agree the FCC needs to clarify practices in a timely way that may be in a gray area.

I applaud any effort at clarification.

I certainly agree that multi-party calls are reimbursable and that there should be no discrimination for deaf only versus hearing only calls. Dr. Z has participated in many effective multiparty calls thru the years and these are great time savers. A deaf group’s only alternative would be to drive or fly to meet in person. In the future this may be obviated by new technologies. I have seen some promising technology with MCUs that could help in this area.

There is a part of this clarification request that is very disturbing. It involves “outreach”.

We all have heard credible stories of deaf to hearing outreach where indeed the purpose was to drive VRS minutes. One of these involved hiring as many as 60 deaf working 2 shifts making calls all day with requirements to “extend the call as long as you can and be on calls for at least 80% of the time”. We believe this is abuse of the fund and of deaf people. We estimated this was resulting in an annual rate of minutes billed to NECA generating over $20M per year.

At the same time we have heard of hearing people calling deaf people for surveys or outreach to deaf. And this is from the same company that uses deaf to outreach to hearing. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have hearing outreach to hearing and deaf outreach to deaf? Of course no NECA minutes there. The Purple clarification calls for allowing these practices. I do not concur.

We all want to see deaf people hired in real jobs that have a legitimate economic basis other than driving TRS minutes even if the individual’s compensation has no direct tie to minutes. Certainly the provider’s compensation has a direct tie to minutes.

Of course there are times when deaf or hearing at a provider use the TRS service in the course of their job. However when the job is designed with the financial basis to drive VRS minutes then it is unethical and fraudulent.

In regard to 3rd parties:

If it is a third party that does not have compensation tied to minutes, then why are they doing it? ZVRS was approached by a company that said they could generate 10,000 minutes per day. They would do outreach for CSDVRS using a room full of deaf making TRS calls to hearing. They advised because the fund would not tolerate pay for minutes they would pay ZVRS for emails generated as a result of the calls. And then they went on to describe the likely number of minutes generated per email.

It does not take advanced algebra to figure out this formula. Cheating = Cheating. There are creative cheaters and non-creative cheaters but the formula prevails.

My momma once told me, “if it smells bad don’t eat it”. In TRS/VRS, we should ask? Does it past the smell test? If it doesn’t, don’t do it! Some things smell and some things stink.

This editorial in question indicates that there was an issue in making calls from a non-VP 200 videophone to a VP-200 videophone using an assigned local number.

I took it upon myself to check this further. Here is what I did:

Knowing people had problems calling me on my VP-200, I decided to verify my local number on the zvrs.com website.

It said my local number (802) XXX-XXXX was not registered on the national data base. A Sorenson installer put the local number on my unit last spring. He drove over 100 miles to my home to do that.

I called Sorenson technical support and explained my situation. The rep (No. 2030) said he was unaware of this situation. He put me on hold and said he would speak to his supervisor. He said his supervisor told him this was not a technical support question and he transferred me to Sorenson customer support.

The customer support rep (No. 50) answered my call. I explained my situation to him. He said everything appeared OK and he did not understand why the number did not work with non-VP 200 units. I explained that I was not the only one as I knew other deaf people had the same problem.

He put me on hold to talk to his supervisor (No. 36.) He came back on and said his supervisor asked him to write an email explaining my situation and they would get back to me.

I will keep you folks posted on this development on this blog.

Dr. Z

Note: As of today (August 17, 2009), I have yet to hear from Sorenson on this matter. I rechecked the info on the ZVRS website regarding the existence of my number on the national data base. It is still not there. I do not understand how difficult it can be to put my local number on the national data base.

This is the link to editorial #2 (for your review).