Highlighting “Off-The-Shelf” Technology for consumers who are not able to utilize any video technology available outside of VRS providers for their VRS usage within FCC’s most recent Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).
FNPRM can be found at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1215/FCC-11-184A1.pdf
Captioned [click "cc" button to view captions]
[2:45]
The gist I got from FCC’s 11-184 NPRM is that they are proposing a ‘closed’ Video Technology Platform for VRS/VP use. Within this ecosystem, all connected VRS access points will be interoperable with each other. Also, I’m strictly a layman on this subject. Please feel free to correct me.
Your video deals with VRS access points and not this VRS ecosystem. Generally speaking, in order for a video technology to be a VRS access point, it needs to be modified by the VRS provider to allow interoperability within the VRS ecosystem and be fully compliant with the FCC rules governing this ecosystem. (i.e., must fully collect ten categories of data for per-minute reimbursement, must query the iTRS database…)
Let’s take iChat for example. It relies on part of the XMPP protocol. A VRS provider would have to build a client/server architecture to fully support iChat clients and allow them to be interoperable with other VRS access points, which may not be XMPP-based; i.e., a VP 200, Ojo, Z-340…
This is why I called for a ban on using ‘closed’ and proprietary video telephony networks such as Skype, FaceTime, Google Talk, etc., unless the VRS provider(s) convert these technologies into VRS access points in a client/server architecture connected to the VRS ecosystem.
A good example of this VRS access point technology at work are the various clients for smartphones and mobile platforms such as netbooks. They are VRS access technology ‘ciients’ that communicate with the VRS servers to facilitate VRS/VP calls using the iTRS database.
I generally agree with your premise that a Deaf consumer should be able to use any video conferencing technology that is available in the mainstream marketplace. But, up to a point. The VRS providers still have to modify them to be VRS access technology points. This way, full interoperability can be achieved among all consumers and all providers. The free markets can meet this challenge.
Cousin Vinny,
I truly appreciate you making the time to comment on this subject. I believe we are in the same boat.
Proposing a ‘closed’ video technology for VRS/VP is a possibility. I would need to review the document once again. Truth to be said, there are too many “loosely interpretation” in each ruling. That’s why most people keep asking for clarification from FCC in every of their proposed rulings.
Peaceboygrumpy mentioned one thing and I felt it is a compelling argument and should be shared with everyone else.
He said, if hearing people can make point-to-point calls using all devices without any problems (e.g.: quality of sound, etc.), why couldn’t our videophones do the same thing?
I reinforced his concern; whenever audio fails, they panic. Whenever video fails, no one seems to jump out of his or her seats to have it fixed. Why?
Attitude toward to hearing more superior than visual (I dread this word, audism, but it obviously applies.)
Thanks for your comment and I do look forward to many more of them in my upcoming vlogs.
-Sean
You have no argument about FCC’s ‘fast and loose rulings’. One glaring example is the FCC’s MO&O Ruling (FCC 11-155), which took me by surprise. My plain reading of prior rules governing subcontracting between VRS providers was totally off the mark. However, I have gotten a little bit better in reading the rules. (I think!)
FCC’s 11-184, if left unchecked and unopposed, will dramatically reshape the VRS industry and is not VRS consumer friendly. I’ve said my piece. I’m waiting to hear from industry participants on this important NPRM. I cannot stress how important it is for VRS consumers to comment on this NPRM.
Peaceboygrumpy does have a valid point, and one that the FCC is trying to address for VRS/VP use. The FCC essentially solved this ‘audio’ problem and interoperability issues arising out of competing terminal equipment and the nation’s varied telecommunication infrastructure by enacting Part 68 Rules. (See Paragraph 42, page 24 of FCC 11-0184.)
This NPRM attempts to remedy interoperability issues in the VRS ecosystem by standardizing on VRS access technology points, and the underlying VRS/VP video telephony network structure. Think Part 68 Rules, but for the VRS industry in 2012. With free markets providing much of the solutions, I have no reason to believe the FCC will achieve its aims of having a cohesive and responsive VRS telecommunications network that rivals the voice telecommunications network, regardless of what equipment and underlying infrastructure is used.
Yeah. I did not comment on this NPRM yet; plan to do so after its in Federal Registry (FR). They are going to put it up in FR sometime during next week. Once they do, we have up to 30 days to comment after FNPRM being posted in FR. Meanwhile, I’d best hurry and finish up captioning my videos (5 more to go) before next week.
Also, I’m asking them to provide us an access where we can post our video comments instead of text-based comments to this FNPRM. Stay tuned.
BTW, glad you mentioned Purple having Skype access for VRS calls. They must know something I don’t; i.e., that consumer preference is driving the company’s decision to support Skype clients. From what I’ve read, a Skype consumer can use Purple to make VRS calls, make calls to other Skype users, but can’t make calls to other VP users.
Purple may differ, but I don’t think this is what the FCC had envisioned. The FCC may treat Skype as a ‘dialer’, which obviates the need for interoperability. It all boils down to a matter of interpretation, I guess.
Yep.
I see Skype or ooVoo, etc as a social media not like a real phone with ph#. it will be a long way for all of them to be on the same page with protocal, etc
As for Purple on Skype – what they did was set up a link with the ID and purple ph# to your account for billing purpose. I got mine set up for my Skype but have not use it, yet. I use z4 and z150 99% of the time.