Three Video Relay Services [VRS] companies – Purple Communications, SnapVRS and CSDVRS has filed a complaint with the Federal Communicatons Commission [FCC], against Sorenson Communications, Inc.
They are requesting that the FCC order Sorenson to halt their alleged non-compliance with the 10 digit number mandate, and degradation of service quality. In their legal brief to the FCC, they state the following:
Sorenson has knowingly and willfully taken action to degrade its videophone [VP] equipment’s ability to fully connect with the services and equipment of other providers. Sorenson’s actions are plainly anti-competitive and, and among other things, present a serious risk to the ability of providers effectively to connect consumers to emergency services.
They accuse Sorenson of hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data, to ensure that only Sorenson will get the Caller ID.
In addition, called parties from the Sorenson VP do not receive caller ID — even when making a VRS call through Sorenson — the lone exception being when there is a point-to-point call between two Sorenson VPs.
What does this mean? It means two things – other VP users and VRS providers will only be able to see the IP address, not the 10 digit number. By allegedly doing this, Sorenson is preventing the deaf consumers of having equivalent access to telephone features that hearing persons are able to use. Furthermore, this also means that when Caller IDs are not shown to other VRS providers (that are not Sorenson), this will cause potentially delayed and even refusal of 911 calls.
If true, this not only violates the FCC’s mandates, but also violates the American Disabilities Act and puts VRS users at risk.
The three VRS companies believe Sorenson is deliberately doing this based on two reasons:
- Sorenson is allegedly hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data.
- Sorenson has ignored repeated requests for clarification from other companies on this matter, with the exception of responding once, pointing to a still pending proposal, ‘Relay Provider Interface’.
In the legal brief, the plantiffs state that while it is true that the proposal will resolve this matter, it is still awaiting FCC’s response. The VP consumers cannot afford delays on the Caller ID matter, especially when it comes to being able to make emergency calls.
Not only that, but ironically in response to the plantiffs’ concerns, Sorenson clearly exhibited knowledge of industry standards and protocols, which gives them no excuse for not complying.
This is going to be very interesting to watch as it unfolds. If the allegations are true – which I believe to be – their conduct is absolutely deplorable and not only does Sorenson deserve this complaint, but they also deserve a mass exodus of their consumers.
Note: I contacted Sorenson this morning asking for comments on this. So far I have not gotten any.
Three Video Relay Services [VRS] companies – Purple Communications, SnapVRS and CSDVRS has filed a complaint with the Federal Communicatons Commission [FCC], against Sorenson Communications, Inc.
They are requesting that the FCC order Sorenson to halt their alleged non-compliance with the 10 digit number mandate, and degradation of service quality. In their legal brief to the FCC, they state the following:
They accuse Sorenson of hiding the Caller ID in proprietary and non-standard data, to ensure that only Sorenson will get the Caller ID.
What does this mean? It means two things – other VP users and VRS providers will only be able to see the IP address, not the 10 digit number. By allegedly doing this, Sorenson is preventing the deaf consumers of having equivalent access to telephone features that hearing persons are able to use. Furthermore, this also means that when Caller IDs are not shown to other VRS providers (that are not Sorenson), this will cause potentially delayed and even refusal of 911 calls.
If true, this not only violates the FCC’s mandates, but also violates the American Disabilities Act and puts VRS users at risk.
The three VRS companies believe Sorenson is deliberately doing this based on two reasons:
In the legal brief, the plantiffs state that while it is true that the proposal will resolve this matter, it is still awaiting FCC’s response. The VP consumers cannot afford delays on the Caller ID matter, especially when it comes to being able to make emergency calls.
Not only that, but ironically in response to the plantiffs’ concerns, Sorenson clearly exhibited knowledge of industry standards and protocols, which gives them no excuse for not complying.
This is going to be very interesting to watch as it unfolds. If the allegations are true – which I believe to be – their conduct is absolutely deplorable and not only does Sorenson deserve this complaint, but they also deserve a mass exodus of their consumers.
Note: I contacted Sorenson this morning asking for comments on this. So far I have not gotten any.