Here We Go Again
An Op-Ed Editorial from Dr. Z

Sorenson has filed a petition with the FCC on August 4, 2009 to restrict providers from assigning phone numbers. On the surface, we can understand how it causes confusion, but theres’s a problem with the request coming from the largest service provider in the industry seeking to maintain or increase market share by suggesting such actions.

The request basically asks the FCC to do two things:

1) not assigning multiple phone numbers to a device

2) a videophone device shall be restricted to a single IP address

I can understand the rationale for the first request. It does cause confusion especially on callbacks, and more so in the event of public safety (911) situations.

I respectfully disagree with the second request. This is to lock down the market to protect their market share since they have a large share of the market already. There are technical solutions such as Z-Connect provided by ZVRS which allows incoming calls to ring to a specific device without the need for a second IP address. If the FCC rules on the second one, it will force every deaf and hard of hearing user with multiple videophones to request additional IP addresses from their cable company or phone company at additional expense. This is unnecessary if there are technical solutions out there that render this moot.

I find it interesting that they filed it right after the TDI convention, without the opportunity to feel anyone out at the TDI convention. There were quite a number of Sorenson executives at the conference and they did not make an effort to ask others what they thought of this. A market leader should be responsible enough to seek and solicit feedback on this, working with other service providers to find the best solution for the deaf and hard of hearing citizens, rather that trying to determine the direction by going to the regulatory agencies without industry feedback or consensus.

If you were a market leader, would you be doing this alone, or work with others to provide the best solution?

This is the link to Sorenson’s filing:

Sorenson Filing to FCC re Assignment of Phone Numbers

From time to time, we add links to guest blogs.  This blog is written by an interpreter who expresses his opinion about the FCC’s presence at the recent RID Conference in Philadelphia.  You can read it by clicking on this link:

Guest Blog by Darryl Crouse re FCC at RID Conference

Going One Step Further
An Op-Ed Editorial from Dr. Z

In the FCC regulations governing VRS, it defines the following in 47 C.F.R. § 64.601 for interpreters as: “Qualified interpreter. An interpreter who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary. “

Note it does not require the use of certified interpreters. Some VRS companies have insisted that their interpreters are certified, which is one or several steps above “qualified” interpreters. Some VRS companies use uncertified interpreters in VRS settings. As a deaf person, I insist on certified interpreters who have agreed to comply with the RID Code of Ethics, in addition to whatever code of ethics individual VRS companies have drawn up. There are protections for confidentiality in section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605 in which video interpreters (CAs) are prohibited from disclosing the content of any relayed conversation regardless of content.

When an interpreter is deemed “qualified”, the level of qualification is set by the individual VRS companies which are not the same from one company to another. Some VRS companies say, we have “high standards” for qualified interpreters. Some say they pay for the certification of their qualified interpreters. Is this good enough? Is this fair to us as deaf and hard of hearing citizens, entrusting our conversations to a system that is completely determined by the VRS companies?

It is time for the VRS companies to step forward and tell us if their interpreters are certified or not.

(more Editorials…)

Second Class Citizens?
An Op-Ed Editorial from Dr. Z

Why do phone calls from a non-VP-200 phone do not ring a VP-200 phone?

If you have an OJO, MVP or a Z series videophone, you sometimes need to call a friend using your non-VP-200 videophone, you kind of expect your friend to answer it, but instead, an interpreter comes on. What have you done wrong?

The answer is you have done no wrong. It is because Sorenson, the provider of the VP-200 phone for your friend has not given (or put up) your friend’s VP-200 phone number on the national data base. People ask why aren’t they doing it. We have not had an answer to this yet. It may be a good idea for you to ask Sorenson yourself to get an answer as to why your VP-200 does not get calls from your friend’s OJO, MVP or Z phones.

The number has to be on the national data base in order for the VP-200 to ring. If you have a VP-200 call another VP-200 it can ring. This again does not seem to be fair, or “functionally equivalent”. We are not being treated as equal citizens as compared to our hearing counterparts who can receive calls from any cell phone made by any manufacturer or service provider.

Are we deaf and hard of hearing people being treated as second-class citizens?